Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judiciary Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers debate expanding Utah Supreme Court and a public judicial-retention committee
Summary
Legislative speakers discussed drafting a bill to increase the Utah Supreme Court's size and a separate proposal (HB512) to create a legislative committee that would provide voters with information and take public comment on judicial retention; the Utah State Bar’s opposition was cited and lawmakers offered contrasting views about politicization and voter information.
Speakers described active discussions about a package of judiciary reforms that includes a proposal to increase the size of the Utah Supreme Court. Speaker 3 said lawmakers are studying caseloads and looking at how other states have added justices. "We've looked at a number of states. Some have gone to 7, some have gone to 9," Speaker 3 said.
Speaker 2 said the Utah State Bar has published a list of judiciary-related bills it opposes and warned that the measures could be perceived as an effort to undermine the judicial branch. "It appears the legislature is sort of on a revenge streak as it relates to the courts," Speaker 2 said, summarizing the Bar's concern.
Speaker 1 strongly disagreed with the characterization, arguing that the legislature is within its prerogative to reconsider authorities it has previously granted and that returning decisions to elected officials can be appropriate. "I would wholeheartedly disagree when it comes to the revenge stuff," Speaker 1 said, adding lawmakers intend to work collaboratively with the Bar and others where possible.
Separately, participants discussed HB512, a proposal to create a legislative committee to gather and present information about judges to voters and to hold open committee hearings that would accept public comment about judicial performance. Speaker 1 said the intent is to give voters more information when judicial retention questions appear on ballots; Speaker 2 and other participants flagged concerns that the process could introduce political pressure on judges.
