Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Conduct topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate passes judicial conduct revisions after heated debate over publicizing reprimands
Summary
The Senate debated House Bill 119 at length on March 3, 2003, over whether formal judicial discipline findings should be public and whether informal reprimands should remain private; the bill was amended and passed, sending it back to the House.
The Utah State Senate passed House Bill 119 on March 3 after an extended floor fight over public disclosure of judicial discipline.
Sponsor Senator Wadobs presented HB 119 as clarifying the Supreme Court’s authority to suspend judges without pay and to make certain findings public. The core change requires that, after a formal disciplinary hearing that results in a finding of misconduct, the finding be disclosed rather than remain confidential. Senator Hilliard and other supporters framed the change as a transparency measure to help voters decide judicial retention and to give other judges guidance on conduct. Senator Thomas, Senator Evans and several others warned the change could reintroduce pressure on judges and argued the Judicial Conduct Commission lacked consistent standards for informal reprimands.
An amendment proposed by Senator Hilliard to allow some matters to remain informal after a formal hearing was debated and rejected on a floor vote. Opponents said that re‑relegating matters to informal status after a full formal proceeding would undermine public accountability; proponents of the amendment said it would protect minor, technical violations from public disclosure without guidance on standards.
On final passage the Senate recorded 22 ayes, 6 nays and 1 absent; the bill, amended in the Senate, will go back to the House.
Why it matters: The bill alters the balance between judicial accountability and confidentiality in disciplinary proceedings. It affects the information available to the public ahead of judicial retention elections and the extent to which judicial misconduct findings are publicly recorded.
What was said: During debate Senator Hilliard stressed that informal resolutions currently avoid publicity for minor matters, while Senator Evans argued the public benefits from seeing formal findings: "We have not done a good job of letting the public know about those judges who have committed misconduct," he said.
Next steps: The House will receive the Senate’s amended version for further consideration and possible conference action.
