How Utah Lawmakers Could Change the Judiciary: 7 Key Proposals

Utah lawmakers are considering a series of proposals that could significantly alter the state’s judicial system, from changes to the Supreme Court’s structure to adjustments in how judges are evaluated and retained. The proposed reforms come after high-profile court rulings last summer that overturned legislative measures, prompting calls for judicial review from key legislative leaders.

Although some lawmakers insist these changes are about improving efficiency rather than retaliation, critics—including the Utah State Bar—argue that certain proposals could threaten the separation of powers and introduce political influence into the courts.

Here’s a look at the key judicial reform bills currently under consideration:

Expanding the Utah Supreme Court

House Majority Leader Rep. Jefferson Moss (R-Saratoga Springs) is exploring the possibility of adding more justices to the Utah Supreme Court. While the specific number of additional justices has not been determined, Moss says the goal is to address growing caseloads and legal complexities that have contributed to delays in the court’s decision-making process.

Governor-Appointed Chief Justice

Under S.B. 296, introduced by Senate Majority Whip Chris Wilson (R-Logan), the process of selecting the chief justice of the Utah Supreme Court would shift from a vote among justices to an appointment by the governor, subject to Senate confirmation. This change would align Utah’s process more closely with the federal system, where the U.S. president selects Supreme Court justices with Senate approval.

Wilson argues that the reform would make the process more transparent and reduce internal politics among justices. However, critics worry that it could inject political influence into the judiciary by giving the governor greater control over the state’s highest court.

Legislative Committee to Review Judges for Retention

A proposed bill, H.B. 512, would establish a legislative committee responsible for making recommendations on whether judges up for retention should remain on the bench. These recommendations would be included on ballots alongside the existing ratings from the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission (JPEC).

Supporters claim this measure would give voters more information before casting their ballots, but the Utah State Bar warns that it could pressure judges to rule in ways that please lawmakers rather than uphold the law impartially.

Higher Threshold for Judge Retention

Currently, judges in Utah only need a simple majority of “yes” votes to remain in office. H.B. 451, introduced by Rep. Jason Kyle (R-Huntsville), seeks to raise that requirement to 67% approval. The bill has yet to advance out of committee.

Restricting Injunctions on Laws During Appeals

Sen. Brady Brammer (R-Pleasant Grove) has proposed S.B. 204, which would allow state officials to appeal trial court injunctions that temporarily block new laws from taking effect due to constitutional concerns. Brammer argues that lower courts too often issue injunctions halting laws passed by the legislature, and this bill would reinforce the principle that laws should be presumed constitutional until proven otherwise.

The Utah State Bar initially opposed the measure but has since adopted a neutral stance.

Time Limit on Constitutional Challenges

Another bill, SJR 009, would require parties seeking to challenge a law’s constitutionality and request an injunction to do so within 28 days of the legislative session’s conclusion. Supporters say this would expedite legal challenges before laws take effect, but opponents argue that it imposes unnecessary restrictions on legal proceedings.

Limits on Third-Party Legal Challenges

Finally, S.B. 203 seeks to tighten the rules on third-party standing, making it harder for organizations to file lawsuits on behalf of their members. Sen. Brammer, who is sponsoring the bill, claims this would prevent Utah’s courts from being used as a battleground for out-of-state interests while preserving access to justice for individuals with legitimate grievances.

However, opponents say the measure could make it more difficult for advocacy groups to challenge unconstitutional laws before they directly harm individuals.

The Debate Continues

While none of these bills have yet been signed into law, they have already sparked heated discussions among lawmakers, legal experts, and advocacy groups. Senate leaders insist the reforms are meant to improve judicial efficiency, while critics argue that they could undermine judicial independence and shift power toward the legislature and governor.

As these proposals move through the legislative process, they will likely face continued scrutiny from legal professionals and the public.

Author
Recent Posts

keelee-mccain

Keelee McCain is a junior at Weber High School. This is her second year on staff, this year as Assistant to the Chief. She does have a life (probably) but she can't think of anything to write in here, so she's probably just going to ramble now. She has an orange cat who she likes better than any human. If you see her being quiet or not sitting on top of a desk, there is something very wrong. In her free time she enjoys harassing her favorite teachers and sleeping. Her life plans include making it through high school and leaving. Happy lifeing.