SALT LAKE CITY — More than 900 attorneys, legal professionals and former Utah judges are urging the Legislature to reject bills they say threaten judicial independence and inject partisan politics into the legal process.

Those individuals signed a letter to lawmakers this week in opposition to a suite of bills targeting Utah's courts.

A bipartisan group of attorneys also held a news conference Wednesday at the state Capitol in Salt Lake City to speak out against the legislative proposals. Kristy Kimball, a partner at Holland & Hart, called the bills a "dangerous and coordinated attack on the independence of Utah's judiciary."

"Justice should never be up for political negotiation," Kimball said. "The courts are meant to serve the people — not politicians."

"These are not just a few bad bills," added Brooke Nelson, an attorney and Republican delegate in Salt Lake County. "This is a coordinated effort to weaken the courts, limit judicial oversight and consolidate the power of the politicians at the expense of the people's power."

About a dozen proposals have targeted the judiciary this year, but attorneys are particularly concerned about a few, including:

• HB512 would create a legislative panel to evaluate a judge's performance and require that the evaluation be printed on the ballot.
• HB451 would raise the threshold for a judge winning a retention election to 67% instead of a simple majority.
• SB296 would give the governor power to choose who leads the state Supreme Court as chief justice, a position currently decided by the court itself.
• A proposal for a bill that would add justices to that five-member Supreme Court.

Some Republican lawmakers have been angry about several recent rulings from the Utah Supreme Court. One of them said lawmakers had overstepped their authority in changing a citizen ballot initiative on redistricting. The court also allowed the pause on the state's abortion trigger ban to remain in place pending legal action.

Related

How lawmakers are proposing to reshape Utah's court system

State lawmakers are taking aim at the court system with a series of bills that could change how the judicial branch checks the Legislature's power.

But GOP leaders on Wednesday rejected the idea that they are going after the judiciary. They argued the proposals would create more transparency.

"I think we're trying to knock the rough edges off, get all the input, let the public comment come," said Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton. "Surely, the judiciary or attorneys can give us public comment. We welcome that. We welcome their input, and we're trying to make good policy."

"Healthy debate and reform do not undermine democracy — they strengthen it," said House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, noting that the state Constitution gives lawmakers the power to "adjust" parts of both the executive and judicial branches. "We welcome and encourage all to make their voices heard on this and other important issues."

'It's obviously retribution'

During a meeting of the state Judicial Council on Monday, members of the Utah Supreme Court were presented with several of the proposals.

"Let's step back a little bit and look at this. There are two decisions they didn't like last summer," said Justice Paige Petersen, who was appointed by Republican Gov. Gary Herbert in 2017.

She said the potential expansion of the Utah Supreme Court could be compared to "court-packing" proposals with the federal court, and said the Legislature's proposals were created "because they didn't like two decisions that we made."

The Utah State Bar has strongly opposed several of the proposed bills, but the courts themselves have largely taken neutral positions.

"It seems like our approach is: 'Can you please just punch us in the stomach instead of punching us in the face?' and be happy and neutral about it," Petersen said. "The Bar is out there saying 'this is unacceptable,' and we're saying, 'Oh, we're taking you in good faith. You're just trying to solve problems.' No, it's retribution. It's obviously retribution, and I'm not sure why we're not saying that."

Chief Justice Matthew Durrant, appointed by GOP Gov. Mike Leavitt in 2000, addressed the proposal to let the governor appoint the chief justice — a position that is currently selected by the five justices themselves — and require the chief justice to go through the reconfirmation process with lawmakers before serving an additional term.

"That element to it is an attempt to influence and exert legislative control over the chief justice," Durrant said. "Now, the chief justice is going to … be thinking about the next confirmation hearing and struggling to ensure that his or her views are not influenced in any way by concerns about a confirmation hearing and to ensure that she or he is focused on what the law mandates."

"I do think everything here is in response to these particular opinions," he added.

When asked about the justices' comments this week and whether this year's bills constitute "retribution," Adams pushed back.

"I see it differently," the Senate president said. "I don't think it is. I think we're trying to make good policy up here, and we'd welcome any input, and we're still open to input."

Judicial reform bills advance

Three of the bills in question advanced through legislative committees Tuesday and Wednesday, though one of them was amended to make changes designed to be more favorable to attorneys who previously expressed opposition.

The House Judiciary Committee advanced SB203 on a party-line vote Wednesday. The bill requires an association to identify a member of its group who could be harmed by a law in order to file a lawsuit on behalf of that individual. Sen. Brady Brammer, R-Highland, the bill sponsor, said he views the bill as making minor changes to rules over who has standing to sue.

"It's a bill that will help our state to deal with relevant issues as opposed to hypothetical issues," he said.

That same committee advanced another of Brammer's bills, SB204. This bill allows certain preliminary injunctions — like the one currently blocking the abortion ban from taking effect — to be appealed directly to the Supreme Court. Both SB203 and SB204 now go to the House floor for a vote, and if they pass there they will need to clear a final Senate hurdle if they pass there.

On Tuesday, a Senate committee advanced SB296, the bill giving the governor power to appoint the Supreme Court's chief justice. Senate Majority Whip Chris Wilson, R-Logan, said this bill "enhances transparency in our state while preserving the system of checks and balances."

Wilson said the bill would align the state with the federal process through which the president appoints the chief justice. However, in the federal system, the justices are appointed for life and are not subject to further reconfirmation hearings by Congress or the president.

The bill advanced on party lines, and Senate Minority Leader Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City, questioned whether lawmakers and the governor should be involved in picking who leads the Utah Supreme Court. She noted that lawmakers would likely bristle at the prospect of having the governor or the courts pick the House speaker or Senate president.

The legislative session ends March 7.

Related topics