Jerry O'Neil for Supreme Court Justice
Nonpartisan Position
By Denise Rivette
Montana Independent News posed the same four questions to all candidates for Supreme Court Justice. Jerry O’Neil’s views are presented in their entirety below.
What are the Montana values that will guide your decision-making?
I will rule on cases that come before the Montana Supreme Court, interpreting and applying the Constitution, “the supreme Law of the Land,” Article VI Clause 2, not legislate from the bench in order to get the result that fits my philosophy.
If the existing law is unconstitutional under the Montana or the United States Constitutions, I intend to speak up and rule based upon the Montana and U.S. Constitutions.
In office, I will dissent when the Court is legislating from the bench as a super legislature, regardless of whether the other justice’s disfavor of my position. This “legislating from the bench“ became obvious in the case of Montana Democratic Party v. Jacobsen, where the progressive majority on the Court disagreed with Justices Dirk Sandefur and Jim Rice, both of whom filed very intelligent dissents pointing out the fallacy of the majority. I intend to honor the legacy of retiring Justice Dirk Sandefur and work in step with Justice Jim Rice.
The issues of the case were: 1) Do we allow non-citizens to register to vote the day of the election, use student identification cards that do not establish residency, and allow “ballot harvesting” to garner votes? Or 2) do we protect the right to not have our vote diluted by preventing schemes such as the use of student identification cards, “ballot harvesting,” and same day voter registration? Montana’s legislature legislated to protect our right to vote safe from dilution. The Montana Supreme Court ruled it is unconstitutional to protect the court from dilution, instead allowing the use of student identification cards, ballot harvesting, and same day voter registration.
And most importantly, when the Supreme Court Justices ruled against Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, they threatened to remove his Bar Association license for criticizing the courts. In doing so, they exposed their monopoly by legislating from the bench and suppressed Knudsen’s 1st Amendment Right to speak freely against injustice in the courts. In violating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they clearly legislate from the bench to which I adamantly oppose.
What skills, knowledge and experience do you possess that make you the better candidate?
My 40 years as an attorney through the Blackfeet Tribal Courts, 12 years as a Republican in the Montana State Legislature, both House and Senate, active on the Judiciary Committees, and my helping hundreds of clients in the court system who were not able to get help from the monopoly, give me the history and vital experience unique to all other candidates. I see the stronghold Bar Association attorneys have that monopolizes people’s rights to access the court system with independent representation.
I have seen firsthand how the system legislates from the bench to protect its monopoly. Section 25-31-601 of Montana's Codes Annotated (MCA), provides that "[p]arties in justice's court may appear and act in person or by attorney; and any person, except the constable by whom the summons or jury process was served, may act as attorney." To maintain their monopoly in the case of Sparks v. Johnson, the Montana Supreme Court searched nationwide until they found a similar law in West Virginia which agreed with the result they wanted, so they added their preferred words to the statute and made it a one use privilege.
Montana code 1-2-101 states, "In the construction of a statute, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted or to omit what has been inserted. Where there are several provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all.”
What is your approach to judicial decision making?
I will interpret and apply the supreme Law of the Land, the Federal, and the State of Montana’s Constitutions, and follow 1-2-101, MCA, “to ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted or to omit what has been inserted, ” in order to rule on the laws as they are written. If I have a philosophical disagreement with a law, I will point out my disagreement in my concurring or dissenting opinion, but will rule on the law the way it is written. I will guard against legislating from the bench; and as a member of the Court who will be involved in making the rules of practice, I will work tirelessly to do away with the bar's monopoly over the practice of law.
As Justice what do you hope to accomplish?
As a justice on the Montana Supreme Court, it will be my intention to do away with legislating from the bench and the monopoly over the practice of law that restricts truth and justice from prevailing in the courts.