Are Utahns informed enough when voting on their judges?

SALT LAKE CITY — During Monday morning's House judiciary committee meeting, public comment leaned against HB512, a bill focused on judicial retention modifications, sponsored by Majority Whip Rep. Karianne Lisonbee, R-Clearfield.

Despite heavy public resistance, the bill passed the committee 7-2, receiving opposition from Salt Lake City Democratic Reps. Verona Mauga and Grant Miller.

A retention election means a judge is up for a yes-no vote by the public to decide if they should hold his/her position in office for another term.

"Every election cycle, the No. 1 question I'm asked by friends, neighbors and constituents is, 'How should I vote on retaining judges?'" Lisonbee said Monday, emphasizing that voters generally vote "all yes" or "all no" due to insufficient information.

The bill proposes significant changes to Utah's judicial retention process. It would add a legislative review component under a bipartisan committee and adjust how voters receive information about judges up for retention.

"It will increase information to voters by providing that any recommendation decision of the joint legislative committee on judicial performance be published in the voter information pamphlet and on the ballot for judges for judicial retention elections," Lisonbee said. It would also provide "sensitive records that relate to the character, professional competence, or physical and mental health of an individual that could interfere with or undermine the fairness of the proceedings."

"The idea that the judiciary is fully independent from the Legislature is simply false and is unconstitutionally false. It is structurally meant to be tied to the Legislature," she added. "HB512 creates the joint legislative committee on judicial performance and describes an evaluation and recommendation process for that committee. This will increase transparency by providing public proceedings and inviting public participation."

Lisonbee clarified that the bill would be a tool for voters in addition to the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission which the Utah Legislature established in 2008 to help voters familiarize themselves with their judges. Though not a replacement, she argued that "JPEC may do a great job, but the voters are not seeing it, and they are not feeling it. It is not something the voters are relying on."

The other side of the argument

The Utah State Courts website acknowledges that judges, as public servants, should give their allegiance solely to the U.S. Constitution:

"The obligation of a judge is to resolve disputes impartially and to base decisions solely upon the facts of the case and the law. A judge, therefore, should be insulated from public pressure."

During public comment, many argued that HB512 would interfere with a judge's ability to be impartial.

Judges must be free to make decisions driven by the law and the facts and not based on who the litigants are and how they might react to those decisions," Michael Drexel, assistant state court administrator at the Administrative Office of the Courts, said. "They look in the eyes of mothers and fathers and separate them from their children for life. They look into the eyes of defendants and put them in prison. They see it firsthand, and they do care about doing their job well and with fidelity."

As a former district court judge from the 1st District in Logan, Kevin Allen said judges should always be held accountable for their decisions in the courtroom. He also stated that judges must rule according to the law and based on facts. However, Allen noted that constant scrutiny and unfounded criticism do have an impact, something he's experienced firsthand.

"Fifty percent of the litigants in front of you are not going to be happy, 50%, and they're going to have things to say about you. They're going to assume you made a ruling because of one way or another. ... Those aren't the facts. This feels like it's being set up to be judged on an opinion and that will affect judges."

Do Americans trust the judicial system?

A Gallup survey last December found that the majority of Americans have lost trust in the country's judiciary institution.

2024, a year filled with high-profile legal cases — from President Donald Trump's numerous indictments to Hunter Biden being found guilty on multiple felony charges — marked "the first time on record that judicial confidence among those approving of U.S. leadership has ever dipped below 60%," the report said, "and the first time that confidence in the courts has been below 50% among both those who approve and those who disapprove of U.S. leadership, a double whammy pushing the national figure to its lowest in two decades."

Only 35% of those surveyed had confidence in the U.S. court system, a record low. Over the past four years, trust in the United States has declined sharply by 24 percentage points, distinguishing it from other wealthy nations where the majority of people still generally trust their systems.

"As a person who stands for election every two years, I understand the importance of communication with voters, the importance of transparency and the importance of accountability," Lisonbee said in her closing remarks on Monday. "I've worked collaboratively over many years with the judiciary, and I am grateful for the work of our good judges. Utahns invest heavily through the legislative branch in their courts and judges and deserve to have better information about their investment."

Related topics