The Moral Algorithm examines Montana's November 2026 statewide ballot, including three ballot measures, the open U.S. Senate seat, both U.S. House races, the Montana Supreme Court, and the Public Service Commission. See how each aligns or conflicts with Ordered Liberty principles of individual rights, economic fairness, citizen sovereignty, and government accountability.

Publisher identity: TheMoralAlgorithm.com Coverage: Statewide and federal contests on the Montana ballot; general election November 3, 2026 Research cutoff: October 27, 2026 Document type: Public, evidence-based comparison against stated principles. Not a candidate endorsement, voting instruction, or representation that any candidate subscribes to The Moral Algorithm.

The central test: Does a public action or proposal protect individual liberty, enable meaningful economic and civic participation, apply fair rules to everyone, constrain concentrated power, and keep public officials accountable to the people?

Scope note: This edition covers only contests that appear statewide or across a full congressional or Public Service Commission district. It does not cover Montana Legislature races (25 Senate and 100 House seats), district court judges, or county and local questions. Your own ballot will include some of those; check it with your county election office.

AT-A-GLANCE ALIGNMENT: START HERE

THE MORAL ALGORITHM | ORDERED LIBERTY | NOVEMBER 3, 2026

Reading the tables: YES = the measure's YES outcome aligns with the stated principles; NO = the measure's NO outcome is closer to those principles; MIXED = important benefits and risks in both directions; UNKNOWN = evidence insufficient. For candidates, ALIGNS means verified priorities or actions overlap with the framework; CONFLICTS means material tension; MIXED means both; UNKNOWN means no defensible conclusion. These are issue-based findings, not voting instructions or endorsements. Party labels identify candidates; they do not determine classifications.

1. Montana ballot measures

Measure	ALIGNMENT	REASON (one line)
CI-132: Nonpartisan judicial elections	YES	Locks in impartial courts that no single party can relabel; does not address party money now flowing to judicial candidates.
CI-133: Right to initiative and referendum	YES*	Protects citizen lawmaking from delay and official interference; its strict-scrutiny standard must still leave room to catch signature fraud.
I-194: The Montana Plan Act (corporate political spending)	YES*	Applies the chartered-entity principle to political spending; faces a steep federal First Amendment test and keeps a political-committee channel open.

*CI-133 and I-194 receive qualified ratings. See Part I for the tradeoffs. The Moral Algorithm's own published policy work favors the corporate-charter approach used in I-194; readers should weigh that rating with this disclosure in mind.

2. U.S. Senate (open seat)

Candidate	ALIGNMENT	REASON (one line)
Kurt Alme (R)	MIXED	Congressional stock-trading and lobbying bans and price transparency align; healthcare and housing rely mainly on spending cuts and deregulation.
Alani Bankhead (D)	ALIGNS (stated)	ACA credits, public option, pharmacy-middleman reform, rural hospital payment, and returning tariff power to Congress.
Seth Bodnar (I)	ALIGNS (stated)	Stock-trading ban, dark-money limits, anti-monopoly posture, Medicaid expansion, and limits on private-equity home buying.
Kyle Austin (L)	MIXED	Unified federal health administration and allied free trade are serious ideas; donor-funded design raises capture questions.
Jami Dee Woodman (no party)	UNKNOWN	No verified platform or questionnaire responses found.

3. U.S. House, Western District (MT-1, open seat)

Candidate	ALIGNMENT	REASON (one line)
Aaron Flint (R)	MIXED	Stock-trading ban, trades education, and limits on Wall Street home buying align; blanket deportation framing raises due-process questions.
Sam Forstag (D)	ALIGNS (stated)	Community land trusts, a Medicare option, lifting the Social Security payroll cap, and refusing corporate PAC money.
Nick Sheedy (L)	CONFLICTS / MIXED	Monetary-accountability concerns overlap; ending the Federal Reserve and a minimal federal health role threaten the participation floor.

4. U.S. House, Eastern District (MT-2)

Candidate	ALIGNMENT	REASON (one line)
Troy Downing (R), incumbent	MIXED	Home-repair and tribal housing bills align; support for Medicaid changes and limited public answers leave key questions open.
Brian Miller (D)	ALIGNS (stated)	Universal coverage, cooperative health models, and ending fossil-fuel subsidies; several proposals face feasibility limits he acknowledges.
Michael Eisenhauer (I)	ALIGNS (stated)	Measurable healthcare reforms with stated success metrics, pharmacy-middleman limits, and bipartisan permitting.
Patrick McCracken (L)	MIXED	War-powers enforcement and price transparency align; partial Medicare opt-out would weaken the shared floor.

5. Montana Public Service Commission (only one district appears on an individual ballot)

District	Candidate	ALIGNMENT	REASON (one line)
1	Jeff Pattison (R)	ALIGNS (stated)	"Pay to play" for data centers, protection from stranded costs, evidence-based merger review, keeps PSC elected.
1	Angeline Cheek (D)	UNKNOWN	No questionnaire responses or verified utility platform found.
5	Annie Bukacek (R), incumbent	MIXED / UNCLEAR	Has raised ratepayer-cost and procedural concerns; did not answer public questions and cast the lone vote against sending back NorthWestern's plan.
5	Kev Hamm (D)	MIXED	Strong ratepayer and anti-capture stance; publicly prejudging the merger conflicts with the PSC's duty to decide on the record.

6. Montana Supreme Court, Seat 4 (nonpartisan, open seat)

Candidate	ALIGNMENT	REASON (one line)
Amy Eddy	ALIGNS (stated, procedural)	Judicial restraint and refusal to attend party events support independence; accepted one policy-group endorsement.
Dan Wilson	MIXED	A coherent conservative judicial philosophy is legitimate; party money, a party keynote, and party endorsement raise independence questions.

Source and certainty note: The statements above are condensed from the detailed material below. ALIGNS (stated) describes promises or priorities, not proven legislative outcomes. UNKNOWN is neither approval nor disapproval. The full source register appears at the end.

---

Executive summary

This review applies the publicly articulated Ordered Liberty framework to every statewide item on Montana's November 2026 general election ballot. Party identification is provided for reference, not used as a proxy for alignment. The Supreme Court race is a nonpartisan contest.

Montana's 2026 ballot has an unusual character. All three ballot measures are about who holds power over the rules themselves: who labels judges, who controls the initiative process, and whether chartered entities may spend to influence elections. These are structural questions, and the framework's reciprocity and accountability tests apply to them directly.

Alignment vocabulary:

• Converges: Verified proposal, practice, or stated priority overlaps substantially with a specified Ordered Liberty principle; this does not mean agreement on all issues.
• Diverges: Verified proposal, practice, or stated priority conflicts with a specified principle; this does not mean the person or measure has no merits.
• Mixed: Meaningful convergence and divergence, or an unresolved tradeoff, are present.
• Not established: Adequate public evidence was not verified to assign a substantive position. Never interpret this as either approval or disapproval.

Important distinction: The words YES and NO in the ballot-measure analyses explain the legal effect of those options. This document does not tell readers which option to select. For candidates, the analysis addresses policy alignment, not character or ability. Publicly reported claims are distinguished from administrative and voting records.

The Moral Algorithm standard

1. Common good / stakeholder test: Do benefits and burdens reflect the interests of all affected people, rather than primarily privileged intermediaries or concentrated interests?
2. Fairness / veil-of-ignorance test: Would the same rule appear legitimate without knowing which political, economic, or social position one occupies?
3. Human flourishing / participation test: Does the decision maintain practical access to education, productive work, healthcare, civil rights, and the economic means to participate?
4. Reciprocity / constitutional power test: Would we support the same authority if exercised by our political opponents? Are rights, due process, representation, and lawful limits protected?
5. Accountability / evidence test: Is there a transparent process, independent oversight, measurable outcomes, and a meaningful remedy when institutions fail?

The framework also distinguishes makers (people creating productive value through work, skill, innovation, or risk) from takers (actors deriving advantage mainly from coercive privilege, monopoly, or economic extraction). These are descriptions of economic conduct, not labels assigned to candidates.

---

Part I: Statewide ballot measures

Primary source: Montana Secretary of State, Proposed 2026 Ballot Issues (qualified measures listed with official text) [S1]. All three measures qualified for the ballot on August 17, 2026 [S1].

Constitutional Initiative 132: Nonpartisan judicial elections

What YES does: Adds one sentence to Article VII of the Montana Constitution: judicial elections shall remain nonpartisan [S4]. What NO does: Leaves nonpartisan judicial elections in place as a matter of statute only, which the Legislature can change [S4]. Montana judicial races have been nonpartisan since 1936 [S4].

Background: The measure emerged after the 2025 session, when several Republican bills to make judicial races partisan failed; those bills followed state court rulings striking down earlier laws on voting and transgender rights [S7]. The Montana Republican Party passed a resolution opposing CI-132 [S7]. The 2025 Legislature also repealed the state ban on political parties contributing to judicial candidates (HB 39), so 2026 is the first Supreme Court race in which parties may give money directly [S22].

Convergence with Ordered Liberty: The reciprocity test fits this measure closely. A rule that lets the current majority attach its party label to judges would be just as available to a future majority of the other party. Courts are the institution that must rule against the government when it oversteps, and a nonpartisan ballot line keeps that role formally separate from party competition. The amendment is one sentence and does not add new powers to any office.

Divergence / tension: Opponents make a real transparency argument: every judge has a worldview, and a party label gives voters information [S4]. A nonpartisan ballot does not remove partisanship; campaign finance records already show party-aligned donors behind both 2026 Supreme Court candidates [S20]. CI-132 does nothing about party contributions now permitted under HB 39, so its practical effect on judicial independence is limited. A competing measure to also bar new courts unless their judges face nonpartisan election was rejected as legally insufficient and is not on the ballot [S1].

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Convergence on reciprocity and judicial independence; limited reach because party money is untouched.

Evidence: Official ballot language and summaries [S1, S4]; coverage of origin and opposition [S7]; HB 39 context [S22].

Constitutional Initiative 133: Right to initiative and referendum

What YES does: Adds a new Section 37 to the Declaration of Rights (Article II) that makes initiative and referendum a fundamental right. Government may not deny or burden it unless justified by a compelling interest achieved by the least restrictive means [S5]. It guarantees, among other things: changes to proposed ballot statements only when they are not true and impartial; resolution of legal-sufficiency challenges and issuance of an approved petition within 90 days of submission; "reasonably ample time" for signature gathering; no invalidation of signatures for technical or minor deficiencies; a right to withdraw one's signature; resolution of qualification challenges before ballots are finalized; and no use of government resources to support or oppose a ballot issue [S5]. It is self-executing [S5]. What NO does: Leaves current statutory procedures in place.

Background: In recent cycles the Attorney General's office rewrote or rejected ballot statements, and courts repeatedly intervened. For example, the Montana Supreme Court in November 2025 found the Attorney General's summary of CI-132 misleading and ordered the campaign's version used [S27]. Supporters describe CI-133 as a response to attacks on the process [S7].

Convergence: This parallels Missouri's 2026 Amendment 6, which received a YES in our Missouri review. Fixed deadlines, impartial ballot language, and a ban on officials using public resources to campaign on measures all advance popular sovereignty and reciprocity: no future administration, of either party, could stall a citizen measure by running out the clock. The signature-withdrawal right respects individual consent.

Tradeoff: The strict-scrutiny standard is demanding. The state still needs room to detect fraud. In 2026, Cascade County staff caught allegedly forged signatures gathered by a firm working for two independent federal campaigns; the signatures were never counted, and on October 27 authorities issued a warrant for a signature gatherer [S23, S32]. Any rule against invalidating signatures for "minor or technical" problems must be read so that it never protects forgery. Opponents also argue the language is broad and vague and could shift power from elected lawmakers [S5]. Those risks are real but depend on how courts read the text.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Strong convergence on popular sovereignty and impartial process; qualified by the need to preserve effective anti-fraud verification.

Evidence: Official text [S1, S5]; background coverage [S7]; signature investigation [S23, S32].

Initiative 194: The Montana Plan Act

What YES does: A statute (not a constitutional amendment) effective January 1, 2027, that redefines the powers Montana grants to "artificial persons" so they exclude any power to spend money or anything of value to support or oppose candidates, parties, political committees, or ballot measures [S1, S6]. It covers corporations, LLCs, nonprofits, trusts, partnerships, trade associations, unions, and out-of-state entities doing business or holding property in Montana [S1, S6]. Violations are void and trigger forfeiture of Montana-conferred charter privileges, such as limited liability, until the entity fully disgorges the spending and certifies compliance [S6]. Exempt: natural persons, government bodies, political committees, and bona fide news or editorial content [S1, S6]. What NO does: Makes no change to Montana law [S6].

Background: Sponsor Jeff Mangan, a former Commissioner of Political Practices, says the design aims to work around Citizens United (2010) by acting on the state's power to charter entities rather than on speech directly [S7]. Endorsers include former Democratic Sen. Jon Tester, former Republican Gov. Marc Racicot, and former Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock [S7]. A constitutional version (CI-135) was approved to circulate but did not qualify [S1]. The Montana, Kalispell, and Billings chambers of commerce oppose I-194, arguing family businesses could not respond to measures targeting them [S7].

Convergence: The measure's core claim, that a corporation is a creature of public charter whose powers the people define, is the concession theory of the corporation that predates the shareholder-primacy era. It speaks directly to the stakeholder test (a chartered privilege should not be turned against the public that grants it) and to the anti-capture side of the makers-and-takers distinction. It treats for-profit companies, nonprofits, and unions alike, which satisfies the reciprocity test: no side's institutions are favored.

Divergence / unresolved feasibility:

• Federal law: The U.S. Supreme Court has protected corporate spending on ballot measures since First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978), and in 2012 it summarily reversed Montana's century-old corporate spending ban in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock. I-194 uses a new legal theory, but a long court fight is near certain, and a loss could leave the state with litigation costs and no change.
• The political-committee channel: Political committees keep full spending power [S1, S6]. Opponents argue money will simply reroute through committees [S6]. If committees must disclose donors and follow limits, as supporters say, that is a real transparency gain; if not, the effect is smaller.
• Breadth: Small businesses, churches, unions, and civic nonprofits lose the ability to spend on ballot measures in their own name, including local levies. Those are participation costs, not only costs to large corporations.
• Durability: As a statute, the Legislature can amend or repeal it [S6].

Disclosure: The Moral Algorithm's published policy work supports the corporate-charter approach this initiative uses, in a stronger form (a constitutional basis and no committee channel). Readers should weigh this finding with that in mind.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Strong conceptual convergence with stakeholder and anti-capture principles; serious unresolved risk from federal First Amendment precedent and a partial loophole through political committees.

Evidence: Official summary [S1]; full text and pro/con summary [S6]; background, endorsers, and opponents [S7].

---

Part II: U.S. Senate

Context: Incumbent Sen. Steve Daines (R) withdrew on March 4, 2026, and endorsed Kurt Alme, who filed the same day; Seth Bodnar filed as an independent the same day [S12]. Democratic legislators later urged either Bankhead or Bodnar to withdraw; neither did before the August deadline [S12, S16b]. Polling reported in October showed Alme ahead of Bodnar by about eight points [S11]. Positions below come mainly from Montana Free Press questionnaires, published unedited [S8, S9, S10]. None of these assessments implies a candidate has endorsed Ordered Liberty.

Kurt Alme (R)

Background: Two-time U.S. Attorney for Montana, former state budget director and revenue director under Gov. Gianforte; first-time candidate [S8].

Publicly stated positions: Bring a "no budget, no pay" bill, ban congressional stock trading, and bar members from becoming lobbyists [S11]. Supports price transparency, telehealth, and the Rural Health Transformation Program created in the 2025 reconciliation law (which he calls the Working Families Tax Cuts Act); argues ACA subsidies mainly benefit insurers [S8, S10]. Affordability plan centers on reducing deficits, keeping the 2025 tax cuts, cutting regulation to build housing, and all-of-the-above energy [S9]. Says Congress must enforce its war-declaring role while giving commanders room to act quickly [S8].

Convergence: The stock-trading ban, the lobbying ban, and pay tied to doing the budget are anti-capture and accountability measures. Price transparency fits the evidence test. As budget director he helped create a treatment fund from marijuana revenue [S8].

Divergence / tension: The healthcare approach relies on market choice and fraud enforcement while accepting reductions in subsidized coverage; the participation test asks what replaces lost coverage for working Montanans. The nomination itself, a same-day handoff from the incumbent, gave primary voters little real choice; that is a process concern, not a finding of wrongdoing.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Mixed; real convergence on congressional ethics, open questions on the participation floor.

Alani Bankhead (D)

Background: Retired Air Force lieutenant colonel; won a five-way Democratic primary with 43.6% [S8].

Publicly stated positions: Restore enhanced ACA tax credits, add a public option, break up vertically integrated pharmacy benefit managers, ban pharmacy clawbacks, pay rural hospitals what care costs, and repay medical-school debt for rural providers; pay for it by cutting administrative waste and raising revenue from the largest corporations and wealthiest households [S10]. Require a congressional vote on broad tariffs; end the Iran war; raise the home-sale capital-gains exclusion; expand the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit; charge large investment funds that buy single-family homes in bulk [S9]. Opposes development of public lands; prioritizes teacher pay [S8].

Convergence: Breaking up pharmacy middlemen and charging bulk home buyers are direct anti-extraction measures. Returning tariff and war power to Congress fits the constitutional-power test. She also states how each step would be measured before the next one proceeds [S10], which fits the evidence test.

Unresolved: An earlier proposal to fund "Medicaid for All" from year-end military spending is not costed [S8]. No governing record yet.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Stated convergence on participation, anti-extraction, and constitutional balance; implementation unproven.

Seth Bodnar (I)

Background: Former Green Beret, former General Electric executive, and former president of the University of Montana [S11]. Largest fundraiser in the race [S8].

Publicly stated positions: Ban congressional stock trading, get dark money out of elections, and stop Big Tech and other monopolies from exploiting consumers [S9]. Restore ACA credits, defend Medicaid expansion, expand Medicare drug negotiation, and increase price transparency for hospitals and pharmacy middlemen [S10]. Cut housing red tape, add tax incentives, and limit private-equity purchases of single-family homes [S8, S9]. Reassert Congress's tariff and war authority; ensure Sentinel missile work uses Montana union labor [S8].

Convergence: The anti-monopoly and dark-money positions match the framework's anti-capture core, and his independence argument is itself a reciprocity claim: he says he would answer to no party [S8].

Note on the record: Cascade County authorities investigated allegedly forged petition signatures gathered by a firm working for the Bodnar and Eisenhauer campaigns; the signatures were caught by county staff and never counted, the campaigns cooperated, and a warrant has since been issued for a signature gatherer [S23, S32]. No wrongdoing by either candidate has been alleged in the sources reviewed.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Stated convergence on anti-capture, participation, and congressional accountability; no legislative record yet.

Kyle Austin (L)

Publicly stated positions: "Healthcare 2.0": consolidate Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, ACA subsidies, VA, Tricare, and federal employee coverage under one congressionally chartered nonprofit with a single administrative framework, funded by redirecting existing appropriations, and measured by public benchmarks with automatic correction [S10]. Faster permitting with environmental review preserved; review of costly regulations; end tariffs with allied nations [S9].

Convergence: Administrative consolidation with published metrics fits the evidence test, and a public standard plan for those priced out of private coverage supports participation.

Tension: The plan invites major corporations to donate to the national health entity [S10], which creates a capture risk. Merging programs with very different legal guarantees needs far more detail.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Mixed; inventive structural ideas with unaddressed capture and transition risks.

Jami Dee Woodman (no party)

Record available: Listed on the certified ballot [S2]; no FEC filings and no questionnaire answers found [S8].

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Not established.

---

Part III: U.S. House, Western District (MT-1)

Context: Rep. Ryan Zinke (R) is not seeking re-election [S15]. Several analysts moved the race to toss-up in October [S15], and Forstag has outraised Flint through mid-October [S30]. Both candidates support a congressional stock-trading ban, banning corporate ownership of family homes, and restoring southern-route passenger rail [S13].

Aaron Flint (R)

Background: Army veteran and conservative talk-radio host; first-time candidate [S13, S15].

Publicly stated positions: Speed energy permitting; a "shop class in every school or a classroom in every shop" career and technical education bill; revive timber; cut regulation to lower housing costs [S9]. Strengthen hospital and insurer price transparency, stop drug makers charging Americans more than other countries, and put Rural Health Transformation money to work [S10]. Ban congressional stock trading, balanced-budget amendment, withhold pay without a budget [S14]. Supports the president's plan to bar Wall Street firms from buying family homes [S13]. Would vote to deport every undocumented immigrant and remove them from Medicare and Medicaid, and argues this would lower housing and healthcare costs [S9, S10].

Convergence: Trades education and timber and energy jobs are maker-oriented; transparency and stock-trading positions support accountability.

Divergence / tension: A blanket deportation pledge raises due-process and reciprocity questions, and the claim that it would materially lower housing costs is asserted, not evidenced. He opposes broader public coverage options without saying how coverage gaps would close.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Mixed; maker and accountability convergence, due-process and participation tensions.

Sam Forstag (D)

Background: Former wildland smokejumper and union leader; first-time candidate [S13, S15].

Publicly stated positions: Expand Community Development Block Grants and community land trusts; incentivize cheaper building; ban out-of-state corporations from buying homes and mobile-home lots [S9]. Offer every American the choice to join Medicare and raise rural reimbursement; reverse 2025 Medicaid and ACA cuts; pay for it by repealing the high-end portions of the 2025 tax law while keeping provisions such as no tax on overtime [S10]. Lift the Social Security payroll cap so high earners pay the same share as everyone else [S9]. Pass a war-powers resolution on Iran [S9]. Was included in a reform group's program asking candidates to reject corporate PAC money and back a stock-trading ban [S24].

Convergence: Community land trusts are a commons-style answer to housing; lifting the payroll cap applies one rule to every income level, which passes the veil-of-ignorance test; refusing corporate PAC money fits anti-capture principles.

Unresolved: Costs and phasing of a Medicare option. His opponent says Forstag lobbied for higher property taxes [S9]; this review did not verify that claim.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Strong stated convergence on participation, fairness, and anti-capture; no governing record.

Nick Sheedy (L)

Publicly stated positions: Did not answer fall questions. In spring he proposed ending the Federal Reserve and returning monetary authority to Congress, and said the federal government should have little role in rural hospitals beyond the VA [S9, S10].

Convergence: Concern about who benefits first from new money, and about an unaccountable monetary authority, is a legitimate accountability theme.

Divergence: Abolishing the central bank without a replacement design, and withdrawing federal support for rural care, would weaken the economic and health foundations the participation test protects.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Mixed with structural tension on the participation floor.

---

Part IV: U.S. House, Eastern District (MT-2)

Troy Downing (R), incumbent

Background: First elected in 2024; former State Auditor [S28].

Public record and stated positions: Did not answer Montana Free Press's fall questions [S9, S10]. In spring he cited his Whole-Home Repairs Act to keep families in existing homes and a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act [S9]. Supported the $50 billion Rural Health Transformation fund and described Medicaid "reforms" as directing more money to patients and less to waste; called for faster CMS reimbursements [S10].

Convergence: Home-repair funding and tribal housing reauthorization support participation and preserve existing housing. Pressing CMS on payment delays helps rural providers.

Tension: The same reconciliation law that created the rural fund also changed Medicaid eligibility rules, which other candidates say will cost tens of thousands of Montanans coverage [S10]; that net effect is the central participation question. Skipping the public questionnaires limits voters' ability to compare.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Mixed; documented housing work aligns, net healthcare effect unresolved.

Brian Miller (D)

Publicly stated positions: Reverse 2025 Medicaid cuts and restore ACA subsidies, funded by higher taxes on top earners and corporations; move toward universal coverage while preserving patient choice and avoiding a one-size federal mandate on states; cooperative, run-at-cost care models; medical-debt relief [S10]. End oil-industry subsidies and use them to offset gas taxes; claw back excess oil profits for rebates [S9]. He says openly that most of this cannot pass now [S9].

Convergence: Cooperative models and ending subsidies to concentrated industries fit the stakeholder and anti-extraction tests.

Tension: Capping CEO pay and banning drug advertising raise constitutional and practical questions the proposals do not address.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Stated convergence; feasibility and legal design unresolved.

Michael Eisenhauer (I)

Background: Great Falls cardiologist [S29].

Publicly stated positions: Five healthcare reforms, each with a named funding source and a stated measure of success: expand Medicare drug negotiation and curb pharmacy benefit managers; expand rural workforce programs; regulate AI-driven prior authorization and scrutinize Medicare Advantage; pay for outcomes rather than volume; enforce hospital price transparency [S10]. Faster permitting, small modular reactors, regulatory review, and an end to the Middle East war [S9].

Convergence: Of all candidates reviewed, his answers most directly satisfy the evidence test: each proposal names how it will be judged. Curbing pharmacy middlemen and prior-authorization abuse are anti-extraction measures.

Note on the record: See the signature investigation note under Bodnar [S23]; no wrongdoing by the candidate is alleged.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Stated convergence on accountability and participation; no governing record.

Patrick McCracken (L)

Publicly stated positions: File a war-powers resolution on day one and offer a funding limitation on military operations against Iran and aid to Ukraine; reintroduce the Federal Reserve Transparency Act [S9]. Require posted cash prices, open catastrophic plans to all, universal health savings accounts, and let workers under 50 keep their share of Medicare taxes in personal accounts; end Medicare Advantage overpayments [S10].

Convergence: War-powers enforcement and Fed transparency fit the constitutional and accountability tests; price posting fits the evidence test.

Tension: Letting younger workers opt out of Medicare contributions shrinks the shared risk pool that guarantees a floor for everyone.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Mixed.

---

Part V: Montana Public Service Commission

The PSC regulates monopoly utilities, including NorthWestern Energy. It is currently all Republican [S31]. Two seats are on the ballot. It acts partly as a court: commissioners decide rate cases and mergers on an evidentiary record, so the framework weighs impartial process heavily alongside ratepayer protection. The PSC was scheduled to take up the proposed $15.4 billion NorthWestern and Black Hills merger on October 27, 2026, the research cutoff date [S19]; the outcome is not reflected here.

District 1 (open seat)

Jeff Pattison (R)

Background: Third-generation farmer and rancher from Glasgow; former state representative; endorsed by both the Montana Stockgrowers Association and the Montana AFL-CIO [S16].

Stated positions: Data centers should "pay to play," with strong large-load tariffs, financial guarantees, and protection against stranded costs so families and farms do not subsidize them [S16]. Would decide the NorthWestern merger on the evidentiary record and Montana's public-interest standard [S16]. Agreed with sending NorthWestern's long-term plan back for revision [S16]. Supports keeping the PSC elected [S16].

Convergence: Shielding captive ratepayers from costs created by large new users is the stakeholder test applied to utilities. Committing to decide on the record satisfies the due-process side of the reciprocity test. Endorsements from both agricultural and labor groups suggest broad trust.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Stated convergence on ratepayer protection and impartial process; no PSC record yet.

Angeline Cheek (D)

Background: Lives on the Fort Peck Reservation; reported long experience as an advocate on Indigenous issues [S26].

Record available: Did not respond to the Daily Montanan's PSC questions [S16]; no verified utility platform found.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Not established.

District 5

Annie Bukacek (R), incumbent

Background: Flathead County physician and incumbent commissioner [S17].

Public record: In August 2026 the PSC voted 3-1 to send NorthWestern's 20-year resource plan back for revision; Bukacek cast the lone no vote, citing concern that the consultant review (up to $260,000) and the plan's cost would be passed to ratepayers [S18]. Her opponent characterizes this as support for the plan [S17]. She has also objected publicly when a rate-case order was finalized without a clear final vote [S18]. She did not answer the Daily Montanan's PSC questions [S17].

Convergence: Attention to ratepayer costs and to proper voting procedure both serve accountability.

Tension: Opposing a request for better documentation of a 20-year plan, when staff found the same transparency gaps as in 2023 [S18], cuts against the evidence test. Declining public questions leaves voters without her stated positions on data centers and the merger.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Mixed / unclear; procedural and cost concerns align, the transparency record is mixed.

Kev Hamm (D)

Background: Helena IT consultant [S17].

Stated positions: Says the PSC has failed to protect NorthWestern customers; would block utility infrastructure to serve hyperscale data centers until cost, water, and land impacts are shown to be acceptable; opposes the NorthWestern merger as a "money grab"; supports an elected PSC [S17].

Convergence: Strong focus on captive ratepayers and on the costs large new loads can shift to households fits the stakeholder and anti-capture tests.

Tension: The PSC rules like a court. Announcing a firm position on a pending merger before reviewing the record, and calling a regulated party a liar, conflicts with the impartial-process standard the framework applies to any adjudicator, whichever side benefits.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Mixed; strong ratepayer convergence, procedural-impartiality concern.

---

Part VI: Montana Supreme Court (nonpartisan)

Judicial Ordered Liberty test: Faithful application of law, protection of procedural rights, equal access, defensible written reasoning, independence from political pressure, and professional conduct. Judges must apply controlling law even when it conflicts with a policy platform. This review does not grade judges on whether they reach preferred outcomes.

Justice Beth Baker is not seeking re-election; both candidates are Flathead County district judges [S20, S22]. This is the first Supreme Court race since parties were allowed to give directly to judicial candidates [S22].

Amy Eddy

Background: District judge since 2015; presided over the special asbestos claims court for Libby cases [S20].

Stated philosophy: Judicial restraint: avoid deciding constitutional questions when a case can be resolved without them; keep politics out of the courtroom [S20]. Delayed her launch so she could have run as an independent if judicial races became partisan; pledges not to attend party events or meet with party leaders [S20].

Convergence: Restraint, refusal of party ties, and neutrality claims fit the independence and procedural-fairness tests closely.

Tension: Accepted an endorsement from Montana Conservation Voters, a policy advocacy group [S20], and prominent Democrats have donated to her campaign [S20]. These are weaker ties than party money, but they are worth noting under the same reciprocity standard applied to her opponent.

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Stated procedural convergence; donor patterns are a monitoring point.

Dan Wilson

Background: District judge since 2017; second run for the court after losing in 2024 [S20, S22].

Stated philosophy: "Classic constitutional conservative" who reads the Constitution as fixed in meaning; criticizes recent Montana Supreme Court decisions as judicial activism, citing a 2024 DUI-sentencing ruling the court later reversed [S20].

Convergence: An originalist method is a legitimate judicial philosophy, and his critique of courts reaching issues not raised by the parties is a procedural argument, not just an outcome complaint.

Divergence / tension: He gave the keynote at the state Republican Party's winter kickoff, received $20,000 from the state party, and is endorsed by the Montana Republican Party, the Montana Chamber of Commerce, and the Montana Mining Association [S21, S22]. Under the reciprocity test, the question is whether voters would accept the same ties between a judge and the opposing party. He says supporters choose him, not the reverse [S20].

ALIGNMENT SUMMARY: Mixed; coherent judicial philosophy, material independence concerns from direct party support.

---

Part VII: Cross-ballot findings, tensions, and research standard

The strongest recurring points of convergence

• Congressional ethics: Candidates of every party (Alme, Bodnar, Flint, Forstag) support banning congressional stock trading. This is the broadest cross-party convergence on the ballot.
• Housing as a commons question: Republicans, Democrats, and the independent all support limits on corporate or Wall Street purchases of family homes.
• Pharmacy middlemen and price transparency: Bankhead, Bodnar, Eisenhauer, Flint, Alme, and McCracken all target opaque pricing or pharmacy benefit managers in some form.
• Rules about the rules: All three ballot measures ask who controls the process. Each leans toward dispersing power away from whichever group currently holds it.

Recurring questions left unresolved

1. Funding: Promises to restore coverage or cut taxes are incomplete without a resilient cash-flow model and an analysis of winners and losers.
2. Party money in courts: CI-132 keeps party labels off the ballot, but HB 39 lets party money in. Neither measure nor candidate addresses that gap.
3. Federal law and I-194: A strong state theory may still lose in federal court; voters should understand the litigation path.
4. Regulators as judges: PSC candidates should be measured on whether they will decide on the record, not only on what they promise.
5. Unknown is unknown: Absence of a demonstrated position must never be relabeled opposition, misconduct, or lack of competence.

What would make a later edition more conclusive?

For Rep. Downing: specific roll-call votes on the 2025 reconciliation law, housing, and agriculture, with fiscal notes. For Senate and House challengers: verbatim policy papers and funding plans. For PSC candidates: written decisions and votes in rate cases, and any responses to the data-center and merger dockets. For judicial candidates: a representative sample of written decisions, reversal rates, and timeliness. For all: Montana Commissioner of Political Practices and FEC filings, distinguishing small-donor, PAC, party, and self-funding sources without assuming a donation establishes a quid pro quo [S25].

This edition does not represent that such comprehensive individual audits have been completed.

Publication and correction policy

TheMoralAlgorithm.com is the editorial masthead and analytical framework. This report is neither a government voter guide nor a statement from any candidate. Readers are encouraged to examine original records and draw their own conclusions. Correction requests should identify the statement, the primary document or recording, and the date; revisions preserve the original edition date and a short change log.

Voting notes (confirm with your county)

Election Day is Tuesday, November 3, 2026, which is also the last day for absentee ballots to be returned [S3]. A state court struck down the new requirement to write your birth year on the absentee envelope in early October, and the Secretary of State's office has said no ballot will be rejected for missing it; a valid signature is still required [S3]. Track your ballot and find your polling place through the state voter portal linked in [S3].

Source register

Primary sources are listed first. Secondary sources provide reported backgrounds or summaries rather than independent validation. Candidate questionnaire answers are reproduced by the publishers unedited and are not fact-checked by them.

• [S1] Montana Secretary of State, Proposed 2026 Ballot Issues (qualified measures, official summaries, non-qualified measures): https://sosmt.gov/elections/ballot_issues/proposed-2026-ballot-issues/
• [S2] Montana Secretary of State, general election candidate filing list (via Vote Clock compilation, checked October 14, 2026): https://voteclock.org/montana-candidates-on-the-ballot-2026
• [S3] Daily Montanan, 2026 General Election Voter Guide: https://dailymontanan.com/voter-guides/2026-general-election/
• [S4] Daily Montanan, Constitutional Initiative 132 (text and pro/con): https://dailymontanan.com/voter-guides/ballot-measures/constitutional-initiative-132/
• [S5] Daily Montanan, Constitutional Initiative 133 (text and pro/con): https://dailymontanan.com/voter-guides/ballot-measures/constitutional-initiative-133/
• [S6] Daily Montanan, Initiative 194 (full text and pro/con): https://dailymontanan.com/voter-guides/ballot-measures/initiative-194/
• [S7] Montana Free Press, "Your guide to Montana's 2026 ballot initiatives" (republished by The Whitehall Ledger): https://www.whitehallledger.com/story/2026/10/21/government/your-guide-to-montanas-2026-ballot-initiatives/11763.html
• [S8] Montana Free Press, 2026 Election Guide (candidate questionnaires, FEC summaries, primary results): https://projects.montanafreepress.org/election-guide-2026/
• [S9] Montana Free Press, "How candidates for U.S. House and Senate would try to make Montana more affordable": https://montanafreepress.org/2026/10/05/how-montana-candidates-federal-office-plan-to-make-life-affordable/
• [S10] Montana Free Press, "How Montana's candidates for U.S. House and Senate plan to tackle healthcare": https://montanafreepress.org/2026/10/07/montana-candidates-healthcare-policy/
• [S11] Montana Public Radio, "Four candidates face-off in chaotic Senate race": https://www.mtpr.org/montana-news/2026-10-14/four-candidates-face-off-in-chaotic-senate-race
• [S12] Ballotpedia News, "Four general election candidates to compete for Montana's open U.S. Senate seat": https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/07/14/four-general-election-candidates-to-compete-for-montanas-open-u-s-senate-seat/
• [S13] Daily Montanan, "Flint, Forstag trade barbs during debate for Montana's open Congressional seat": https://dailymontanan.com/?p=39457
• [S14] NBC Montana, "Forstag, Flint lay out policy positions ahead of election": https://nbcmontana.com/news/beyond-the-podium/forstag-flint-lay-out-policy-positions-ahead-of-election
• [S15] Daily Montanan, "Analysts shift western Montana congressional district to toss-up status": https://dailymontanan.com/2026/10/17/analysts-shift-western-montana-congressional-district-to-toss-up-status/
• [S16] Daily Montanan, Public Service Commission District 1 guide: https://dailymontanan.com/voter-guides/contests/2026-general-montana-public-service-commission-district-1/
• [S16b] Flathead Beacon, 2026 Northwest Montana voter's guide (withdrawal deadline): https://flatheadbeacon.com/2026/10/24/2026-general-election-a-northwest-montana-voters-guide-to-local-state-and-federal-races/
• [S17] Daily Montanan, Public Service Commission District 5 guide: https://dailymontanan.com/voter-guides/contests/2026-general-montana-public-service-commission-district-5/
• [S18] Daily Montanan / States Newsroom, "Public Service Commission says NorthWestern's energy plan 'deficient'": https://www.newsfromthestates.com/node/423288; related procedural dispute: https://missoulacurrent.com/voting-questioned-energy/
• [S19] Daily Montanan / States Newsroom, "Public Service Commission to take up NorthWestern, Black Hills merger": https://www.newsfromthestates.com/node/434443
• [S20] Montana Public Radio, "Concerns over partisanship, 'judicial activism' shape Montana Supreme Court race": https://www.mtpr.org/montana-news/2026-05-12/concerns-over-partisanship-judicial-activism-shape-montana-supreme-court-race
• [S21] KTVH, "Finalists already set for 2026 Montana Supreme Court race": https://www.ktvh.com/news/montana-politics/finalists-already-set-for-2026-montana-supreme-court-race
• [S22] Ballotpedia News, "Montana to have its first state supreme court election since allowing political parties to contribute money to judicial candidates": https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/10/13/montana-to-have-its-first-state-supreme-court-election-since-allowing-political-parties-to-contribute-money-to-judicial-candidates/
• [S23] Bozeman Daily Chronicle, "Authorities probing allegedly bogus signatures gathered for Bodnar, Eisenhauer campaigns": https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/big-sky/authorities-probing-allegedly-bogus-signatures-gathered-for-bodnar-eisenhauer-campaigns/article_a356b4eb-f157-534c-b227-7dff60aa0536.html
• [S24] NBC Montana, "Forstag, Tester discuss campaign finance, public lands at Bozeman town hall": https://nbcmontana.com/news/local/forstag-tester-discuss-campaign-finance-public-lands-at-bozeman-town-hall
• [S25] Montana Commissioner of Political Practices (state campaign finance): https://politicalpractices.mt.gov/; FEC, 2026 Montana Senate race summary: https://www.fec.gov/data/elections/senate/MT/2026/
• [S27] Ballotpedia, Montana CI-132 (ballot-summary litigation history): https://ballotpedia.org/Montana_CI-132,Require_Nonpartisan_Judicial_Elections_Initiative(2026)
• [S28] Ballotpedia, Troy Downing (biography and election history): https://ballotpedia.org/Troy_Downing
• [S29] KXLF, "Growing list of challengers to face U.S. Rep. Downing in Montana's eastern district": https://www.kxlf.com/news/montana-politics/growing-list-of-challengers-to-face-u-s-rep-downing-in-montanas-eastern-district
• [S30] Daily Montanan / States Newsroom, "Democrat Sam Forstag outraises Republican Aaron Flint in western US House district": https://www.newsfromthestates.com/node/434490
• [S31] Wikipedia, 2026 Montana Public Service Commission election (current composition): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Montana_Public_Service_Commission_election
• [S32] Montana Free Press, "Charges filed in Cascade County over forged voter signatures" (October 27, 2026): https://montanafreepress.org/2026/10/27/charges-filed-in-cascade-county-over-forged-voter-signatures/
• [S26] The Ballot Brief, PSC District 1 candidate profiles (secondary; candidate background only): https://theballotbrief.com/state/montana/powder-river-county/public-service-commission-district-1

Source integrity notice

A URL to an institution establishes where records can be checked, not that every assertion in this report was independently corroborated there. Candidate descriptions draw heavily on unedited questionnaire answers and should be checked against original interviews, roll calls, or campaign publications before high-stakes quotation. The report deliberately avoids fabricated numerical scores, endorsements, and unsourced allegations.

Edition: 1.0 | October 27, 2026 Scope note: This is a statewide public analysis; always confirm an individual ballot with your county election office.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Ordered Liberty framework used to evaluate the 2026 Montana ballot? It is a five-part test checking whether a measure or candidate serves the common good, passes a fairness test, supports human flourishing and participation, respects reciprocal constitutional limits, and maintains accountability through oversight and evidence.

Does TheMoralAlgorithm.com endorse any candidate in the 2026 Montana general election? No. The evaluation is a public, evidence-based comparison against stated principles, not a candidate endorsement or voting instruction.

How is I-194, the Montana Plan Act, rated? It receives a qualified YES. Its charter-based approach to corporate political spending fits the framework's stakeholder and anti-capture principles, but it faces serious federal First Amendment risk and leaves political committees free to spend. The Moral Algorithm discloses that its own policy work favors this approach.

Why does the Supreme Court race focus on independence rather than rulings? The framework grades judges on fair process, sound reasoning, and independence from political pressure, not on whether they reach outcomes a reader prefers. Direct party money is new in Montana judicial races this year, so independence is the main measurable difference.

Which issue do candidates from every party agree on? A ban on congressional stock trading. Alme, Bodnar, Flint, and Forstag all support it.

Related Articles

• 2026 Missouri General Election