Estimated read time: 4-5 minutes
- Utah legislative leaders halted controversial judicial bills after discussions with judges.
- Senate President Stuart Adams and House Speaker Mike Schultz emphasized collaboration to address judicial concerns.
- Chief Justice Matthew Durrant warned HB512 could harm judicial credibility and public trust.
SALT LAKE CITY — Utah legislative leaders said Monday they will no longer pursue proposals to change the voting threshold in judicial retention elections or put lawmakers' recommendations about individual judges on the ballot.
In a statement, Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, and House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, said the decision to pause the two bills — and a third one that would have increased the number of justices on the Utah Supreme Court — came after "thoughtful conversations and in a spirit of collaboration" with the judiciary.
"The Legislature stands ready and willing to collaborate with the judiciary in the coming months to jointly address our concerns, specifically around judicial productivity standards and Utah's judicial retention system," the legislative leaders said. "We look forward to finding a path that produces the best outcomes for our government and, most importantly, for the people of Utah."
Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Matthew Durrant issued a statement in response to the compromise, noting that the Judicial Council will take a neutral position on a proposal allowing the governor to select which of the five Supreme Court justices serve as chief. The council will remain neutral on three other bills dealing with the courts.
"The Utah Constitution wisely created three independent branches of government," Durrant said. "At times, there is tension, but that will not prevent the judiciary and the Legislature from working together to serve the people of Utah."
The Utah State Bar also released a statement in support of the agreement, saying it "wishes to express its relief and thank the Legislature for withdrawing HB512," which "preserves the independence of the judiciary and maintains the Constitution's separation of powers between our co-equal branches of government."
The relationship between GOP legislative leaders and the courts has been tense recently, as Republican lawmakers have been upset about several recent court rulings. HB451, sponsored by Rep. Jason Kyle, R-Huntsville, would have required Utah judges to win 67% of the vote in a retention election rather than a simple majority.
But a more controversial proposal, HB512, sponsored by House Majority Whip Karianne Lisonbee, R-Syracuse, would have created a legislative panel to evaluate a judge's performance and require that the evaluation be printed on the ballot.
Durrant had delivered a letter of opposition to top legislative leaders last week, arguing the bill would damage the credibility of the courts.
"HB512 will erode public trust and confidence in the decisions of the judiciary," he wrote. "This will happen regardless of the intent of any individual legislator on the committee and regardless of how careful committee members are in their review of a judge. The possibility of a negative recommendation from the committee will be viewed by the public as an incentive for judges to make politically palatable decisions rather than decisions that are required by the law. It will be viewed as an incentive for judges to act in their own self-interest, rather than upholding the rule of law."
He added that the "Judicial Council opposes HB512 not because it will be uncomfortable or disagreeable to judges. The Judicial Council opposes HB512 because it will harm the ability of Utah citizens to trust that the judiciary can resolve their disputes as the law requires."
Lisonbee announced the compromise not to move ahead with HB512 on the House floor Monday afternoon. While she said the state "clearly hasn't solved the problem" of how to inform voters about judges' track records, she moved that the bill be returned to the Rules Committee and not advance.
"Over the past several days, we've had frank and productive conversations with members of the judiciary about (HB512), and they have recognized some of the shortcomings of the current judicial retention process, and we've heard their concerns about the approach outlined in the bill," Lisonbee said.
Last week, more than 900 attorneys and legal professionals signed a letter urging the Legislature to reject HB512 and other bills they said would threaten judicial independence and inject partisan politics into the legal process.
In their joint statement, Adams and Schultz acknowledged the need for separation between the legislative and judicial branches of government, which "creates natural and necessary friction."
But the leaders defended the Legislature's role in proposing changes and improvements to the courts.
"The proposed changes are procedural updates, not an attack on the judiciary," Adams and Schultz said. "The Utah Constitution entrusts the Legislature with a broad range of responsibilities in shaping the justice system — including creating courts, determining the number of justices, setting forth how a chief justice is chosen, setting up the nominating commissions for judges, confirming judges and setting retention elections, among others. These actions are not overreach; they are the Legislature fulfilling its constitutional duties."
This announcement came with just days left in the legislative session, which ends Friday.
