Utah chief justice addresses Legislature as tensions grow between lawmakers, courts

SALT LAKE CITY — Utah Chief Justice Matthew Durrant delivered his annual State of the Judiciary address Tuesday to a less than friendly crowd of lawmakers, saying disagreements between branches of governments are normal and should be seen as "signs of healthy institutions."

The address, delivered each year on the first day of the legislative session, comes amid increased tensions between lawmakers and the judiciary following several recent rulings on the state's congressional redistricting maps that have angered the GOP majority on Capitol Hill.

Durrant, who was appointed to Utah's high court in 2000, acknowledged that tension as he took to the podium below the House speaker's dais to address all 104 lawmakers gathered in the House chamber for his remarks.

"I was tempted to ... ask you to hold your applause until the end of my speech, but I'm afraid that would be overly optimistic," he said. "Now, I recognize that tensions are high between our branches of government. But that doesn't make it any less of a privilege to be here with you. I see in this room diligent public servants who care deeply about their responsibilities — serious men and women who are focused on good governance."

Lawmakers have proposed several changes to the judiciary in recent years and are looking to add two justices to the five-member Supreme Court, as well as increase the judges on the appellate level during this year's session. It's been more than a century since Utah expanded the size of the court, and top lawmakers say the change would help the justices resolve issues more quickly.

Sen. Scott Sandall, R-Tremonton, said he has received complaints from constituents who say they have struggled to get their cases heard before a judge.

"We're slowing down our people's ability to put things behind," he told reporters earlier Tuesday.

Durrant asked the Legislature for $6 million in funds for training and staff retention, along with funding for eight district court judges, one juvenile court judge and one or two appellate judges. He added that while COVID-19-era issues caused a slowdown in appeals cases, which have been working their way through the high court in recent years, the Supreme Court has "essentially no backlog" of cases.

"I ask that your disappointment with a few results not lead to penalties for an entire branch of government — and, by extension, penalties for your constituents," the chief justice said.

Adding justices to the Supreme Court is the Legislature's "prerogative," Durrant said, but he asked that they "not do it at the expense of the judicial positions we have prioritized" as the "need for additional judges is much greater in our lower courts."

Durrant closed by warning that the erosion of trust in institutions, including the courts and Legislature, threatens "the freedom and prosperity that has so miraculously graced us since the founding."

"There can and should be substantive disagreements, both within our respective institutions and between them," he said. "These disagreements are to be celebrated. And valid criticisms should always be welcome. They are signs of healthy institutions."

He said Supreme Court rulings will always leave one side "disappointed," and pushed back on claims that "judicial activism" is motivating certain decisions.

"We apply a presumption of good faith to the work you do. I hope you will afford us that same presumption," Durrant told lawmakers.

His speech was met with a tepid standing ovation, though a handful GOP lawmakers remained seated throughout.

While Republicans pitch the judicial reforms as measures to improve the efficiency of the court, Democrats question the motives of making changes to the judiciary, given the recent tensions between the Legislature and courts.

Sen. Stephanie Pitcher, D-Salt Lake City, said she's not necessarily opposed to expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court but that in her experience as an attorney, the district courts are where cases are backing up.

"What I'm really opposed to, I think, is the process and the way that this has gone about," she said. "I think arguments that expanding the Supreme Court to address work issues are largely pretextual. ... I think with the position that we're at right now with redistricting and all of the litigation that's gone through, I think it is a pretty clear attempt to sway the ideology of the Supreme Court at a really critical time in that litigation process."

"The public and people are very suspicious" of the timing, added Senate Minority Leader Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City.

Related topics