Auditors say Utah courts need more oversight, accountability

SALT LAKE CITY — An audit recommended that Utah lawmakers consider adding members of the legislative and executive branches to help oversee the courts, saying the judiciary has prioritized independence over accountability.

But the courts sharply pushed back on the suggestion, arguing that it would go against the traditional separation of powers.

The report, put together by the Office of the Legislative Auditor General, was the capstone of four separate audits of various aspects of Utah's court system. All the audits were presented to a panel of top lawmakers Wednesday.

Auditors wrote that the "root cause" of many problems identified in the state's court system is "an approach that has traditionally placed a greater emphasis on judicial independence than accountability."

"Although judicial independence (is) needed, stronger accountability can improve judicial governance and strengthen public confidence in the court system," they wrote.

Auditors specifically suggested that adding members of the two other branches to the Judicial Council — which sets policy for the courts — could "help promote broader accountability in judicial governance."

Associate Chief Justice Jill Pohlman, who also serves as the chairwoman of the council, pushed back.

"The Judicial Council acknowledges and respects the authority of the Legislature to supplement the constitutional membership requirements," she wrote in a response to the findings. "The Judicial Council believes that representation or membership from the executive or legislative branches may violate principles of separation of powers and may undermine the ability of the Judiciary to accomplish its work free of political influence."

After the audit was presented, Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz also suggested lawmakers could look at reducing the number of members on the Judicial Council.

"I do have some concerns in regards to the makeup of the Judicial Council," the Hooper Republican said. "More specifically, how large the Judicial Council has become with 18 members."

He added, "If you look into ... good governance models, whether it's business, private sector or government, these large boards become hard to navigate."

Whatever lawmakers end up doing, House Minority Leader Angela Romero, D-Salt Lake City, said she wants to ensure the courts can operate separately from other branches of government.

"We also want to make sure that we, as a Legislature, are respecting that independence," she said, "and we're also not putting together a board or a commission that are people that are group thinkers or people that want to appease us as legislators."

What else did auditors recommend?

Auditors also recommended the Judicial Council take a more active role in holding the judiciary accountable, something they said "may require a shift in leadership philosophy and organizational culture."

"We believe a lack of accountability creates an environment where outcomes vary from one courtroom to another, performance gaps go unaddressed, and public confidence in the court's ability to deliver fair and consistent justice may decline," the report states. "While we agree that judicial independence and discretion are necessary to an impartial judiciary, they should not be viewed as incompatible with accountability."

The other audits raised concerns about various aspects of Utah's court system, finding issues with evaluating the performance of judges and a disparity in incarceration rates in different parts of the state.

One report found that the state's Judicial Council lacks a system to ensure justice is applied fairly across the state. The auditors' analysis found "significant differences in sentencing decisions across districts and individual judges," with some districts sentencing offenders to prison time more than twice as often as others.

"The differences seen between both districts and individual judges indicate that sentencing decisions depend, at least in part, on where the case originates and the judge assigned to hear it," the report states.

The audit found that district courts across the Wasatch Front had vastly different sentencing outcomes for those convicted of third-degree felonies between 2017 and 2025. Incarceration rates ranged from 35% in the 4th District Court to as high as 75% in the 2nd District Court.

The state average was 52% for similar crimes.

"We also identified multiple case examples of individuals with similar offenses, sentencing guideline scores and recommendations who received markedly different sentences from different judges," the report states. "For example, some offenders were sentenced to prison, while others received probation in cases that appear to have similar characteristics."

In response, Pohlman noted that "sentencing decisions are highly individualized and may be influenced" by myriad factors. She said the council would create a process for reviewing sentencing data to "identify training needs, data quality concerns, broader system issues and information for judicial leadership or other justice system partners."

Sentencing decisions "remain with the judge based on the facts and circumstances of each case and applicable law," Pohlman added.

Evaluating judges

State judges are subject to retention elections after being appointed, but a separate audit raised concerns about the body tasked with evaluating judicial performance and making recommendations to voters.

The report found "little evidence" showing that the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission's recommendations lead to better performance, and its survey results are "overwhelmingly positive," making it hard for voters to accurately assess the qualifications of judges.

"We also found examples where judges received passing evaluations even though the Utah Supreme Court later publicly disciplined them for conduct the JPEC's survey was intended to measure," the report states.

Auditors recommended the evaluation commission create better ways of objectively evaluating judges and find ways to measure their effectiveness.

"JPEC is steadfastly committed to continuous improvement," Mary-Margaret Pingree, the commission's executive director, wrote in response. "The perspective shared in this report (provides) a framework to evaluate our existing practices and further strengthen judicial performance evaluation in our state."

Another audit looked at the state's Judicial Conduct Commission, which investigates allegations of misconduct by judges. The commission was thrust into the spotlight earlier this year when it declined to fully investigate a complaint against Justice Diana Hagen, who resigned in May. She was accused of having an inappropriate relationship with an attorney arguing cases before the court.

The audit recommended the Judicial Conduct Commission tighten its processes, including providing clarity on how commission members should recuse themselves from cases — and providing better documentation and explanations about why certain investigations don't move forward.

Tensions between the Republican-controlled Legislature and the courts have increased in recent years as GOP lawmakers have suffered several defeats on high-profile issues, such as abortion and redistricting.

In the wake of those defeats, the Legislature has made some changes to the judiciary, including expanding the Utah Supreme Court by two seats. Other proposals to reshape the court system have not passed.

Former Chief Justice Matthew Durrant, who retired last month, told lawmakers earlier this year that disagreements between branches of government are normal and should be seen as "signs of healthy institutions."

Related topics