After a tense back-and-forth with the judicial branch, Utah lawmakers will not pursue changes to the state’s judicial retention process this year.
House Majority Whip Karianne Lisonbee voluntarily halted progress on her bill to establish a judicial review committee made up of legislators. Their recommendations for judicial retention would have appeared on the election ballot.
“Over the past several days, we've had frank and productive conversations with members of the judiciary about [HB512],” she said. “They have recognized some of the shortcomings of the current judicial retention process, and we've heard their concerns about the approach outlined in the bill.”
Still, Lisonbee left the door open for the issue to return in the future.
“We intend to engage with the judiciary over the interim to identify potential solutions to address our concerns, including ways to enhance Utah's judicial retention system.”
The March 3 announcement capped off several weeks of disagreements between the legislative and judicial branches.
Last week, more than 900 lawyers signed a letter opposing efforts to reform the courts. They called it an “erosion of judicial independence.”
In February, the Utah State Bar announced their opposition to several bills aimed at the courts. They issued a statement on Monday that expressed relief with the agreement.
“The withdrawal of HB512 preserves the independence of the judiciary and maintains the constitution’s separation of powers between our co-equal branches of government,” the statement read.
The Utah Judicial Council and Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Matthew B. Durrant also issued a statement expressing their belief that our system of government, as it functions now, “creates natural and necessary friction between the branches.”
“The Utah Constitution wisely created three independent branches of government,” Durrant wrote. “At times, there is tension, but that will not prevent the Judiciary and the Legislature from working together to serve the people of Utah.”
During the debate over the bill, Durrant penned a rare letter to lawmakers on Feb. 27, expressing his concerns with Lisonbee’s bill. He wrote that it introduced “partisan politics directly into the work of the Judiciary.”
Lawmakers’ efforts come on the heels of last year’s high-profile Utah Supreme Court decisions on abortion and redistricting where the Legislature was on the losing side.
Those rulings sent shockwaves through the Republican supermajority. Both Senate President Stuart Adams and Speaker of the House Mike Schultz accused Supreme Court justices of “undermining the constitutional authority of the Legislature” after they ruled on the state’s abortion trigger law. Some Republicans even called for court reform.
In a joint statement, Adams and Schultz remained steadfast in their belief that the Legislature has the authority to alter the courts. They called the proposed changes “procedural updates, not an attack on the Judiciary.”
“The Utah Constitution entrusts the Legislature with a broad range of responsibilities in shaping the justice system—including creating courts, determining the number of justices, setting forth how a chief justice is chosen, setting up the nominating commissions for judges, confirming judges and setting retention elections, among others,” they said. “These actions are not overreach; they are the Legislature fulfilling its constitutional duties.”
While efforts to alter judicial retention have been halted, other bills are still on the table. That includes an effort to alter the time frame in which plaintiffs can challenge laws passed by the Legislature, change judicial standing and change who gets to choose the Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court. All will still move through the legislative process with neutral stances from the Utah Judicial Council.
