Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

John Kutzman

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Local Politics Image.jpg

Ballotpedia provides comprehensive election coverage of the 100 largest cities in America by population as well as mayoral, city council, and district attorney election coverage in state capitals outside of the 100 largest cities. This judge is outside of that coverage scope and does not receive scheduled updates.


BP-Initials-UPDATED.png
Ballotpedia does not currently cover this office or maintain this page. Please contact us with any updates.
John Kutzman

Silhouette Placeholder Image.png

Do you have a photo that could go here? Click here to submit it for this profile!


Montana 8th Judicial District Court
Tenure
Present officeholder
Elections and appointments
Last elected

November 8, 2016

Appointed

June 16, 2015

Education

Bachelor's

University of Montana

Law

University of Montana


John Kutzman is a judge of the 8th Judicial District Court in Montana. He was appointed by Governor Steve Bullock on June 16, 2015, to replace Judge Kenneth Neill. Kutzman took his seat on July 1, 2015.[1]

Kutzman ran for election to his seat in 2016. As an incumbent running unopposed, he faced a retention election on November 8, 2016. He won retention in the election.[2]

Biography

Email editor@ballotpedia.org to notify us of updates to this biography.

Kutzman received both his undergraduate degree and his J.D. from the University of Montana. At the time of his appointment, Kutzman was a partner of Paoli Kutzman, P.C.[1]

Elections

2016

See also: Montana local trial court judicial elections, 2016

Montana held general elections for local judicial offices on November 8, 2016. A primary election took place on June 7, 2016. The filing deadline for candidates who wished to run in this election was March 14, 2016.[3] John Kutzman was retained in the Montana District 8 (Department 3) election with 84.43 percent of the vote. [2]

Montana District 8 (Department 3), 2016
Name Yes votes
Green check mark transparent.pngJohn Kutzman84.43%
Source: Montana Secretary of State, "2016 General Election Results," accessed November 10, 2016

Selection method

See also: Nonpartisan elections

The 43 judges of the Montana District Courts are chosen in nonpartisan elections for six-year terms. At the end of their term, they must run for re-election. If a judge is unopposed for re-election, it becomes a retention election instead.[4]

The chief judge of each district court is chosen annually on the basis of seniority.[4]

Qualifications
To serve on this court, a judge must be:[4]

  • a U.S. citizen;
  • a state resident for at least two years;
  • a resident of the district represented; and
  • licensed to practice law in the state for at least five years.

Approach to the law

Kutzman's application for the judgeship was quoted on KRTV.com:

The most important qualities for a good district court judge are fairness, patience, curiosity, and diligence.

The judge's work begins and ends with fairness to the parties, the public, and the system within the constraints imposed by the controlling law.

The judge's sense of fairness is a double check on what the statutes and decisions require; if the statutes and decisions lead to an intuitively just result, the judge's decision will easily communicate the fairness of the law and the system. If the statutes and decisions lead to an unfair result, the judge's decision should communicate the constraints at issue that compelled the result. To get to fairness the judge must be patient with the parties and their lawyers.

The judge is trying to manage a difficult case load but most of the parties within that case load will be having what they hope is their one lifetime contact with the court system. The legitimacy of the system depends on the judge treating the parties with dignity and respect, and balancing the judge's own time constraints against the parties' legitimate need for time and scope to present their cases.

The judge's responsibility to the system and the general public requires intellectual curiosity: the parties may be relying on the wrong legal theories, the wrong authority, or both. Obviously the judge cannot take over for the lawyers, but neither can the judge be a mere passive bystander if the parties are advocating for incorrect legal reasoning.

Ultimately, the judge must be diligent in keeping the docket moving. No state or federal judge anywhere has too much time and not enough cases to decide. This is especially true in an urban judicial district like ours. The practice of law is not a 9 to 5 job for an attorney who takes it seriously, and the judge must similarly do what it takes to keep the docket current.[5]

—John Kutzman[1]

See also

External links

Footnotes