Supreme Court Candidates Vie for Votes

SEELEY LAKE - The Seeley Lake Community Council hosted two candidate forums, Sept. 19 and Sept. 26, at the Seeley Lake Community Hall. Candidates for state and local races answered questions from moderator and Council Chair Klaus von Sutterheim and the audience.

All candidates that will appear on the ballot including Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians, were invited.

This week the Pathfinder features the candidates for Supreme Court Justice and State Auditor. Visit http://www.seeleylake.com for coverage of the Governor/Lieutenant Governor; U.S. Congress; Secretary of State; and State Attorney General candidates. Look for the Public Service Commission and Superintendent of Public Instruction coverage in next week's issue.

Absentee voters will receive their ballots Oct. 14. The general election is Nov. 8.

Supreme Court Justice: After the retirement of Justice Patricia O'Brien Cotter, candidates Dirk Sandefur and Kristen Juras are vying for the eight-year term on the Montana Supreme Court. This is the only statewide non-partisan race. Both were in attendance at the Sept. 19 forum.

Dirk Sandefur was raised by an auto body mechanic and a mother who worked at doctors' offices. He said he put himself through school at the University of Montana, working "a wide variety of blue collar jobs until I became a lawyer."

For the past 25 years, Sandefur has worked as a police officer, prosecutor and deputy county attorney. For the last 14 years, he has been a state district judge. Currently he is a state district judge in Great Falls, Mont. for Cascade Country. He was elected to this position when it was created.

"I firmly believe in public service," said Sandefur. "My record is impeccable from the standpoint that I have never, ever had any hint of partisanship or philosophical, social or personal agenda into anything that I've ever done."

Sandefur said he has presided over all the different kinds of cases that he would see at the Supreme Court level including business, child abuse and neglect, criminal, civil, constitutional cases and everything in between.

Sandefur emphasized the importance of the Montana Supreme Court. It decides cases that come to it from the district level that affect Montanans' rights, businesses and lives in ways that many people don't realize.

"I'm supported by every single one of Montana's retired supreme court justices," said Sandefur. "These people haven't agreed about much over the last 30 years but they agreed about this."

Kristen Juras is a fourth generation Montanan. She was born and raised on the family ranch outside of Conrad, Mont. She graduated from the University of Montana for her under graduate degree and attended Law School at the University of Georgia. She worked for two years for the former Secretary of State Dean Rusk under Presidents Johnson and Kennedy.

Juras returned to Montana in 1988 with her husband and three sons when she accepted a job with the law firm Church, Harris, Johnson and Williams in Great Falls, Mont.

In 2000, Juras began teaching at the University of Montana Law School. She teaches classes in property, contract, business and agricultural law. She has received a research award and the outstanding teacher award from her students, recognizing her commitment to her students and public service.

Juras also received a preeminent rating from her peers for her private law practice. The rating is given to only 15 percent of attorneys in Montana that represents excellence in practice and ethics and integrity.

Juras is running for the Montana Supreme Court because she believes the court would benefit from an attorney with 34 years of experience representing farmers, ranchers, small business owners, nonprofits and private individuals in their daily legal needs.

She highlighted that there are currently five justices on the Supreme Court that have a government background in criminal law. "I've been in the trenches and fighting the government for you and that is a different perspective. That balance would serve the citizens of Montana well."

What is your judicial philosophy and how does it differ from your opponent?

Sandefur: Cases are decided based on the facts and the case.

"I apply the applicable law as established by our state and federal constitutions and our legislature to the facts and let the chips fall where they may."

Sandefur said his philosophy differs from Juras because he has been on the bench and has a demonstrated record.

"You don't have to listen to what I say I'll do, I will do what I've done."

Juras: Juras has a two-legged philosophy. First she believes the responsibility of the court is to fairly, impartially and consistently apply the laws adopted by the legislature, not create new laws.

"The court's responsibility is to protect constitutional rights, not to create new constitutional rights."

Second, there is a responsibility to be consistent and predictable in the opinions issued.

"In order for Montana citizens and businesses to properly manage their affairs, they need a predictable, consistent, impartial legal environment in order to thrive."

What do you feel is the jury's role in the courtroom, is the judge just a referee and the jury is the 12 judges that decide the case?

Juras: If the jury is allowed to determine the law that applies to that case, rather than applying the laws created by the legislature, different decisions will be generated on the same matter based on the composition of the jury. This results in unpredictable, inconsistent laws.

"The sitting judge is responsible to make sure the jury is aware of the laws and the instruction to the jury, etc."

Sandefur: The role of the judge is to be the referee during the course of the trial and to instruct the jury on the laws. The role of the jury is to determine what the facts are and to make a judgment based on the facts and the law that the court instructs them on.

"The jury system is the best in the world. It works. It needs to stay that way."

Is trapping protected by the Montana constitution the same as hunting and fishing?

Sandefur: Unsure whether trapping falls under the same category of recreational hunting and fishing. From the standpoint of harvesting game, there is an argument that it does. He refrained to comment further because he was not aware of this issue coming before the court and said judges are bound by ethical rules from commenting on issues that would come before the court.

Juras: The people of Montana amended the constitution to protect the state's hunting culture and certainly trapping could be considered a part of that culture. There are questions about how that can be regulated but "in my opinion trapping does fall under the hunting provision of the constitution."

How partisan do you see the Supreme Court race?

Juras: It is a non-partisan race because the court is not a legislative body and does not establish public policy.

However, the media characterizes justices as conservative or liberal. Courts have become political in their decisions lending credence to those characterizations.

"In my opinion is it a candidate that adheres more closely to the true role of the court, fairly applying the laws or a more activist court that is more willing to legislate."

Sandefur: With the increasing amount of corporate money in state campaigns, these races have become much politicized. The candidates are not that way as much as the people bringing cases to the court.

"We are not elected to see the world the way our constituents do. We are elected to enforce, protect and defend the constitution of the state of Montana and the United States."

In a hypothetical case where Montana law is established and federal law contradicts but has not been passed through the Senate, House or enacted by the President, which law would trump the other, state or federal?

Juras: It depends. Historically, the federal government was limited and under the 10th amendment, those not under the federal government are delegated to the states.

"If it is clearly within the domain of the states, it is the states that should be legislating. But with the creeping extension of jurisdiction of the federal government into nearly all areas, including those in the domain of the states, the federal courts may take the position that the federal government can do this."

Sandefur: If the federal law was enacted within the scope of the federal power, then the federal law would control over the conflicting state law even if they conflicted.

"The United States Supreme Court has greatly expanded the commerce clause and other provisions of the constitution to give it board powers that it never was intended."

Follow up questions - What if it is only a directive and not a law?

Juras: If the federal courts determine that it is a regulation within the scope of federal power, then it will preempt the state law.

Sandefur: The state agencies have power delegated from congress. Because of the unintended explosion of federal power, those things generally end up on the side of the federal power trumping the state power.

If someone opens a private business in this state, can it be taken away because the money is going out of state (example being the Mountain Water Case in Missoula)?

Sandefur: Not knowing the details of the case, it seems to be a ridiculous result if the court's decision was based on money going out of state. Business owners who send money out of state are entitled to the same rights as those born and raised here.

Juras: The court reversed its decision from 20 years ago with the decision of eminent domain being one of the many facts considered.

"The court upheld the exercise of eminent domain shifting services from a private service provider to the government."

How do you feel about the government being more efficient than the private sector?

Juras: Courts don't decide this issue. My personal stance is I believe in capitalism. "Whenever a private business or citizen can provide services we are all better off for all kinds of reasons. The only time the government should be involved is if there is a need that can't be filled at a fair price."

Sandefur: In most cases in places where private businesses can thrive, they are already there. Government services often are in areas where private businesses can't make money or citizens require services.

"Generally, it depends on which services. But the government should not have its nose where it would supplant other businesses."

Juras, please elaborate on your role as general counsel with crop growers during the criminal proceedings and what happened in testimony

Juras: Juras explained that she was general counsel for a publically traded crop insurance company out of Great Falls. Conduct occurred before she was hired based on alleged illegal campaign donations to Mike Espy. It resulted in a criminal investigation. Juras did internal investigation as well. She was never investigated, nor was she the subject of the investigation.

"It was a situation where I learned a lot, got experience in federal criminal law and it also taught me a lesson in ethics because when you are hired by guys who later you conclude may not have acted in a way that wasn't in the best interest of the cooperation, you are going to have some differences of opinions," said Juras. She resigned prior to the criminal trial and consent decree was entered.

Sandefur: Did not take issue with what she said nor has he challenged her on the issue.

Sandefur, why would you defer a sentence for rape?

Sandefur: Unsure what case was being referred to. Those issues come to the court under plea agreements.

"I can accept their agreement or refuse the agreement and force them to go to trial."