The head of the state Republican Party has asked Montana Supreme Court justices to sign a "pledge of fairness" on choosing the next state redistricting commission chair -- only to have his request roundly rejected or ignored.

In fact, Justice James Nelson last week sent a scathing reply, saying he was "appalled" at Erik Iverson's request and disputing the suggestion that past choices had been tainted by politics.

"In my 15-plus years as a member of this court, I have never known a member of this court to case a vote on the basis of, or to argue a legal position, grounded in partisan ideology," Nelson wrote.

The five-person Districting and Apportionment Commission draws the boundaries for Montana legislative districts every 10 years.

A new commission will be chosen next year, to draw districts taking effect in 2014. Montana Republican Party leaders believe that the prior commission, which had a 3-2 Democratic majority, drew districts that unfairly favored Democrats.

The high court chose the fifth and final member of that commission in 1999. Democratic and Republican party leaders each choose two other members; the court picks the final member only if the four other members can't agree on one.

Iverson, the state Republican Party chairman, also sent the pledge to the two candidates running for chief justice of the Supreme Court: Helena attorney Ron Waterman and state Attorney General Mike McGrath.

Both candidates also rejected Iverson's request, saying it is "inappropriate" for a judge or any candidate for judicial office to sign a pledge on any issue before the court or on behalf of a political party.

"I'm not going to make any pledges to anyone except the people, and the pledge I'll make is when I'm sworn in (to uphold the constitution)," Waterman said.

However, Waterman did say if the high court chooses the next commission chair, the process should be open to the public. Nelson also agreed on this point, as did Justice Patricia Cotter, who is running unopposed for re-election this year.

Iverson, an attorney, said Wednesday he still believes it's proper for anyone to ask elected judges or judicial candidates to promise fairness and openness in naming the next chair of the five-person Districting and Apportionment Commission.

"This has nothing to do with a court case or a legal matter before the court," he said Wednesday.

Iverson said the Supreme Court has chosen the commission chair three times since the 1960s, and that each time it selected someone with ties to the Democratic Party.

"There's a distinct pattern here," he said. "There is no way that Jim Nelson or anyone else can argue with a straight face that the boundaries drawn by the last commission are fair. If he's trying to suggest this process isn't partisan, he is severely out of touch with reality."

Joe Lamson, a Democratic member of the prior commission and architect of its final plan, has said he intended to create more "swing" districts that gave both parties a chance to win.

He also has said Democrats felt that districts drawn by the 1990 commission unfairly favored Republicans, who won huge legislative majorities in 1994 and held them until the new districts took effect in 2004.

Since 2004, control of the Legislature has been closely split between the parties.

Nelson said the high court chose the 1999 chair -- Janine Pease, a college professor and Crow tribal member with experience in voting-rights cases -- because she was the best-qualified candidate. The court voted 7-0 to name her as chair.

Cotter said she also thought Iverson's request was inappropriate, and did not reply. She noted that a new code of judicial ethics that the court may adopt this year says if a judge takes a public position on an issue that comes before the court, that judge should disqualify themselves from that case.