- Utah lawmakers approved a bill to expand the Supreme Court and district courts.
- Lawmakers have yet to approve the $6.5 million cost needed in the next fiscal year to add new judges and staff.
- The Utah State Bar comes out against a series of judicial reform bills, saying they threaten to erode the court's independence.
SALT LAKE CITY — Lawmakers gave final approval to a bill expanding Utah's Supreme Court, appellate court and district courts Friday, sending the bill to Gov. Spencer Cox for his signature.
The outcome isn't surprising — top Republican leaders and the governor came out in favor of the expansion ahead of this year's legislative session — and SB134 passed easily through both the House and Senate with all but a few Republicans voting in favor.
"I think we owe it to our citizens to make sure that their cases are heard as quickly as possible," the bill's sponsor, Sen. Chris Wilson, R-Logan, told a Senate committee last week, arguing that the additional justices and judges would help courts move through their caseload faster. "There's nothing like having a court case hanging over your head as you're trying to go about life."
The bill initially proposed adding two justices to the Utah Supreme Court and two to the Utah Court of Appeals but was later changed to also add three judges to the lower courts, after Chief Justice Matthew Durrant told lawmakers the real need for additional jurists is most acute at the district court level.
Critics of the bill have questioned the timing of its proposal, following more than a year of rising anger from some GOP leaders toward court decisions on abortion and redistricting.
Rep. Grant Amjad Miller, D-Salt Lake City, rose in opposition to the bill during debate on the House floor but said he was glad to see some resources directed toward district courts.
"What concerns me here is the great expense that would have to be incurred by the state to expand the Supreme Court," he said. "It's my hope that the entirety of expense in this bill be targeted and funneled to the clerks and the district court judges to help the access to justice issues that we have."
While the bill passed and will likely be signed by the governor, the expansion isn't a done deal, as lawmakers have yet to appropriate the $1.7 million required to construct new chambers to fit the additional Supreme Court justices and the ongoing $4.7 million for operational costs, salaries and benefits for the new judges and their staff.
Lawmakers finalize the state budget during the last week of the session, so they will spend the next several weeks hashing out various spending requests. If the bill is signed and funded, top lawmakers said the executive branch will begin the process of appointing new justices beginning with the Utah Supreme Court and then working down to the court of appeals and district court.
Utah State Bar opposes package of judicial bills
SB134 isn't the only change to the judicial system lawmakers have proposed, and the Utah State Bar came out swinging against a series of proposals it says would remake the state courts. In a letter reminiscent of the bar's pushback against a slate of related bills last session, the bar commission wrote that the legislation would work together to make it easier for lawmakers to remove judges and replace them "based on subjective political judgments rather than legal skill, experience and demonstrated ability to be fair and impartial."
"While each proposal is present as a narrow change, together these bills operate as an overhaul to how judges are appointed, retained and pressured while on the bench," the commission wrote. "The combined effect weakens long-standing safeguards that protect judges from political retribution and undermines the public's right to a judiciary that upholds the rule of law without favor."
The Utah State Bar expressed support for the addition of appeals and district judges, along with a bill creating civil and criminal penalties for people who practice law without a license, but it opposes adding justices to the Supreme Court.
It "strongly" opposed bills removing defense attorneys from the Utah Sentencing Commission, proposing a constitutional amendment allowing the governor to ignore recommendations for appointment from the Judicial Nominating Commission and proposing a constitutional amendment allowing the Legislature to initiate special retention elections to remove judges.
The bar also opposes bills increasing the percentage judges must get in retention elections in order to stay on the bench, changing how courts assign and manage certain cases, and creating a new "Constitutional Court" to hear cases involving constitutional challenges.
Elizabeth Wright, the executive director of the Utah State Bar, told KSL Thursday that while it's uncommon for the bar to weigh in so forcefully, it is speaking out given the number of bills that directly impact the practice of law.
"Utah has a model for judicial selection that is recognized across the country as being the best in terms of making sure that judges are qualified, impartial and that the public has faith in the system about the way they're selected," she said. "Our concern is a lot of these bills kind of dismantle or adjust the current terrific system that we have and add a little more partisanship into that selection."
Asked about the response from the bar by KSL on Thursday, top Senate Republicans, including members of the bar, said the proposals are not being rushed and that lawmakers will weigh policy on both sides before advancing.
"I do know that they felt like we were rushing these bills through, and that's not accurate," said Senate Majority Assistant Whip Mike McKell, R-Spanish Fork, an attorney. "We're following the process. This is the process we always follow."
A fellow attorney, Senate Majority Leader Kirk Cullimore, R-Sandy, said the bar is "a very narrow special interest group" that doesn't represent most lawyers practicing in Utah.
"Both of us are members of that exact organization," said McKell, pointing at Cullimore. "I disagree with their position, and I think I talk to attorneys every day that see it differently than the state bar."
Contributing: Don Brinkerhoff
