Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Constable Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate debates shifting constables from election to appointment and narrows who may serve legal process
Summary
Senators debated two related bills: House Bill 116 (process-server rules) and House Bill 133 (constable amendments). Supporters said appointment and clearer service rules will improve reliability; opponents warned of constitutional conflict and loss of local elections. Both bills were placed on the third‑reading calendar.
The Utah Senate spent extended floor time on two linked measures that would change who serves court process and how constables are selected.
House Bill 116, the process‑server amendments, was presented as a technical effort by a task force to align statutory practice with the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Senator Pearson, a task‑force co‑chair, told colleagues the bill "sets parameters for the fees, and it provides penalties for falsifying return of service and for false billing," and that committee changes remit service authority to those allowed under the rules of civil procedure. The Senate adopted the committee report and placed HB116 on the third‑reading calendar (the clerk announced the bill "shows 26 ayes, 3 being absent").
More contested was House Bill 133, the constable amendments. Sponsor Senator Peterson said the bill "sets forth the qualifications for a constable, and it provides the constables will be screened by a county or municipal nominating commission and appointed by local government other than being elected." He described provisions to make constables accountable to counties or cities, to allow withdrawal of authority for cause, and to govern fees and penalties.
Opponents pressed constitutional and civic‑accountability concerns. Senator Pace argued that the measure "reminds me a little bit of the story ... I think the main thing it does is ... sets a nominating committee ... and it substitutes a new body of politics," adding that changing an elected office to appointment risks removing voters' control. In the same vein, other senators said they worried the measure substitutes a county 'good‑old‑boys' nominating structure for direct election.
Supporters including Senator Story and Senator Tempest framed the change as pragmatic: they said many constable offices go unfilled or attract unqualified candidates, that appointment would produce more reliable service and oversight, and that the task force reached the conclusions after prolonged study. "It's finally somebody walks in and signs their name on the constable record to be a part of the election," Story said, describing vacancies and failures of the elected system.
After extended debate and questions about constitutional authority and committee votes, both bills were advanced to the third‑reading calendar for further action and technical review; senators signaled staff and committee follow‑up on constitutional phrasing and implementation details. The body did not adopt a final substantive amendment on the floor to change HB133's appointment framework during this session.
