Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Nominations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House passes bill shifting appointments to governor for Judicial Nominating Commission after heated debate
Summary
After hours of debate, the Utah House passed Senate Bill 243 to change how members of the Judicial Nominating Commission are selected, expanding the governor—s role and increasing appellate nominee short lists. Opponents called the bill a power grab; supporters said it balances philosophy and competence.
The Utah House on Feb. 19 passed Senate Bill 243, a bill that changes how the Judicial Nominating Commission is constituted and expands the number of appellate court nominees the commission forwards to the governor.
Proponents said the bill gives the elected executive branch a clearer voice in shaping judicial philosophy while still protecting judicial competence. Representative Valentine, the bill—s floor sponsor, said the legislation allows the executive branch to "have some say as to the slate of candidates that come before them" and encouraged members to support the measure.
Opponents argued the proposal concentrates appointment power in the governor—s office and risks politicizing judicial selection. Representative Jones said the measure "moves us more towards a political influence system" and warned it was effectively "a power grab," arguing the existing merit-based system had produced a qualified judiciary.
The Goldenrod amendment included several structural changes: the chief justice would serve as an ex officio, nonvoting member of the nominating commission; for appellate vacancies the commission would forward five nominees instead of three; for trial-court vacancies the list would remain three nominees. Supporters emphasized these changes were part of negotiated compromise language on page 2 of the Goldenrod copy.
Representative Harwood, who spoke in support, said his philosophy favors giving the governor influence on judicial philosophy: "My philosophy is when we're talking about picking the court, there are 3 things that are important," he said, listing competence, philosophy and independence as the priorities the process should address.
After extended debate and several members posing constitutional and comparative-law questions, the House recorded a final vote of 43 yes, 27 no, and 6 absent and transmitted the bill as passed. The sponsor and supporters characterized the measure as restoring balance between branches; opponents said they would monitor the law—s implementation closely.
The next formal step is transmittal to the Senate (if returned) or enrollment and, as required by law, any affected statutory or administrative practice will be adjusted according to the new statutory text.
