Update Feb. 27: The chief justice of the Utah Supreme Court has weighed in on one of the bills lawmakers are considering. Our original story continues below.
Hundreds of Utah lawyers have a simple message for the Legislature: back off on court reform.
Specifically, they are opposed to nine bills that could change the way courts in Utah work. They would do everything from make changes to the judicial retention process, alter time frames in which plaintiffs can challenge laws passed by the Legislature, to change who gets to choose the Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court.
Attorney Kristy Kimball is one of more than 900 attorneys that signed a letter to lawmakers. She and dozens of others hand delivered it to the state capitol on Feb. 26. In their eyes the bills represent a “dangerous and coordinated attack on the independence of Utah's judiciary.”
“We are here because we believe in the rule of law,” she said. “We believe in the fundamental principle that our courts must remain impartial and free from political influence.”
The bills follow a series of Utah Supreme Court decisions in 2024 on abortion and redistricting where the Legislature was on the losing side.
In the aftermath of those rulings, some Republicans called for court reform. Now, lawmakers say these changes are needed to provide greater public transparency.
The Utah State Bar is also opposed to several bills aimed at the courts this session.
Majority Whip Karianne Lisonbee argued during a Feb. 24 House committee hearing that HB512, her bill to create a judicial review committee made up of legislators who would issue recommendations to voters on whether or not a judge should be retained, “is simply more information to the voter.” In her opinion, “it is about time that voters have the information they need to vote in traditional retention elections.”
The Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission already compiles nonpartisan reports on judges running for retention, but that review process is isolated from the Legislature.
The bill was singled out by the lawyers rallying at the capitol. University of Utah law professor Chris Peterson called the effort to influence judicial retention votes “unprecedented, and frankly, outrageous.”
“Have you ever heard of a recommendation telling you how to vote on a ballot before?” he said. “The job of the Legislature is to pass laws, not to tell you how to vote in confidential, secret ballots.”
Some Utah judges are not on board with these proposals, either.
At a Utah Judicial Council meeting on Feb. 24, Supreme Court Justice Paige Petersen called the Legislature’s actions “retribution” for court rulings that have not been in their favor.
“It’s obviously retribution and I’m not sure why we’re not saying that.”
Senate President Stuart Adams sees it differently, however, and doesn’t think it’s retribution.
“I think we're trying to make good policy up here,” he said. “We'd welcome any input, and we're still open to input.”
During her committee hearing, Lisonbee added that in her view, the state constitution gives lawmakers the ability to change the judicial branch if it sees fit.
“To say that the courts are an ivory tower off to the side that the Legislature should not interact with is simply not in accordance with the way that our constitution is structured.”
Lisonbee’s bill advanced on a party-line vote and goes to the House for debate.
Kimball closed her remarks at the capitol by calling the bills an “erosion of judicial independence.”
“We've heard from legal experts, public defenders and attorneys from both sides of the aisle,” she said. “This is not a partisan issue. It is a constitutional one and free from politics.”
