Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Judicial Evaluations topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

House advances bill to add judicial evaluations to voter pamphlet

1991 Utah Legislature · February 25, 1991
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Substitute Senate Bill 176 would require the state voter information pamphlet to explain judicial selection/retention, list judges standing for retention and indicate which judges meet Judicial Council evaluation criteria; sponsor said the bill aims to give voters more information without including Judicial Conduct Commission records.

The Utah House debated and advanced substitute Senate Bill 176 on Feb. 25, a measure that would require the statewide voter information pamphlet to include information about the judicial selection and retention process, list the names of judges standing for retention, and indicate which judges have met evaluation criteria established by the Judicial Council.

Representative Gachau, speaking for the bill on the floor, said the change would give voters clearer information about judges before retention elections. "What this does is require in the voter information pamphlet...The judicial selection and retention process explaining to people...And 2, it identifies the names of the judges standing. And 3, it indicates which of those judges have met the evaluation criteria," Gachau said. The sponsor explained the bill will make currently private Judicial Council evaluations available to voters as part of the pamphlet and will make treatment of justice court judges more consistent with municipal judges regarding who may appear on the ballot.

Representative Bodley asked whether information from the Judicial Conduct Commission—investigatory or disciplinary records—would become public under the bill. The sponsor replied that the bill does not include records from the Judicial Conduct Commission and that those records remain subject to existing confidentiality until due process is completed; the bill includes only the Judicial Council's evaluation results. Representative Nelson confirmed that the bill originated with the Judicial Council.

The House took its vote on the substitute bill later in the session; the clerk recorded the bill’s passage among several votes read into the journal on the date recorded.