Estimated read time: 1-2 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
For lawmakers on Capitol Hill who want to change the way the chief justice of the Utah Supreme Court is selected we ask a most simple question - why? What, exactly, on the high court is broken that needs to be fixed?
As it now stands, the five appointed justices on the Supreme Court elect their own chief every four years. It has been that way since statehood. The system has worked exceptionally well and kept Utah's judicial branch mostly immune from the intense political maneuverings that are typically part of the other branches of government.
If passed, Senate Bill 109 would give the governor the power to select the chief justice, something the current governor says he isn't seeking. The measure's sponsor says his intent is to strengthen the checks and balances of the three branches of government. It seems to KSL precisely the opposite would occur. It would summarily strengthen the powerful executive branch and the highly partisan legislative branch at the expense of a weakened judiciary . . . and that is something hardly needed in this one-party-dominant state.
KSL believes it is critical to have an independent judiciary where the justices are beholden to the law more than political pressure. Senate Bill 109 should advance no further.
