SALT LAKE CITY — After facing criticism and protests from legal professionals, Utah lawmakers and the state judiciary have come to a resolution regarding several high-profile bills. Some proposals, particularly those related to judicial retention and elections, will no longer move forward, while others will continue through the legislative process.
Bills That Will Not Advance
Senate President J. Stuart Adams and Speaker Mike Schultz issued a joint statement on Monday, announcing that certain judicial reform bills will be set aside after extensive discussions.
“Through deliberate debate, thoughtful conversations, and in a spirit of collaboration, the Legislature and the Judiciary have found a path forward that will make our government stronger and our state better,” the statement read.
The following bills are no longer under consideration:
- H.B. 512 – Judicial Retention Changes: Proposed creating a Joint Legislative Committee on Judicial Performance, which would have influenced judicial retention recommendations listed on ballots.
- H.B. 451 – Judicial Election Amendments: Sought to increase the retention threshold for judges, requiring them to secure at least 67% of the vote to remain in office.
- Unnumbered “Judicial Officer Modifications”: Would have expanded the number of justices on Utah’s courts.
Bills Still Moving Forward
While some proposals have been set aside, others remain active in the legislature. The following bills and resolutions are still under consideration:
- S.B. 203 – Judicial Standing Amendments: This bill aims to limit third-party standing in lawsuits and impose stricter requirements for organizations filing lawsuits on behalf of their members. Critics argue this could restrict access to legal challenges for Utah residents.
- S.B. 204 – Right to Appeal Amendments: Would allow defendants to appeal an injunction when a trial court temporarily halts a law due to potential constitutional concerns. Senator Brady Brammer (R–Pleasant Grove) has stated this measure seeks to prevent overuse of injunctions, particularly against laws enacted by the legislature and governor.
- S.J.R. 9 – Joint Resolution on Civil Procedure for Injunctions: Proposes a 28-day deadline for filing legal challenges against potentially unconstitutional laws. This means lawsuits seeking injunctions must be filed within 28 days of the legislature’s adjournment.
Judicial Council’s Position
Meanwhile, the Judicial Council, the governing body of Utah’s judiciary, has opted to remain neutral on S.B. 296, which would allow the governor to appoint judges to fill vacancies in the state’s high courts and courts of appeals, pending Senate confirmation.
Chief Justice Matthew B. Durrant, who leads the Judicial Council, reaffirmed the importance of cooperation between government branches.
“The Utah Constitution wisely created three independent branches of government. At times, there is tension, but that will not prevent the Judiciary and the Legislature from working together to serve the people of Utah,” he said in a statement.
For further details on these bills and their implications, residents can follow updates from Utah’s legislative and judicial bodies .
