A pair of bills targeting Utah’s judiciary — one that would have let the Legislature target certain judges for defeat in their retention elections and another requiring judges to get a supermajority to keep their jobs — are dead for this session.
House Majority Whip Karianne Lisonbee, R-Clearfield, said her intent with HB512 was to make sure the public had more access to information about judges, beyond the reviews conducted by the nonpartisan Judicial Performance Evaluation Committee.
Her solution would have been a legislative committee that could hold hearings and take public comment about the judges it chooses to scrutinize and put on the ballot next to the judge’s name whether the committee recommends keeping the judge or voting the judge off the bench.
“Over the past several days, we’ve had frank and productive conversations with members of the judiciary,” Lisonbee said Monday. “They have recognized some of the shortcomings of the current judicial retention process and we’ve heard their concerns about the approach outlined in the bill. After these thoughtful conversations, and in the spirit of collaboration, we have agreed not to move forward with HB512 this year.”
Instead, she said, the Legislature will work with the judiciary to improve the retention system before the legislative session next year.
(Bethany Baker | The Salt Lake Tribune) Rep. Karianne Lisonbee, R-Clearfield, asks a question during a House Education Committee meeting at the Capitol in Salt Lake City Friday, Jan. 31, 2025.
Another bill, HB496, which would have required judges to get at least 67% in judicial retention elections every six years in order to keep their spot on the bench, will also be scrapped this session, legislative leaders announced — while reiterating that they were not punishing the judiciary for rulings that hampered the Republican lawmakers’ agenda.
“Our aim is to preserve this legacy of excellence while improving transparency, efficiency and integrity within our courts,” House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, and Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, said in a statement.
“The proposed changes are procedural updates, not an attack on the judiciary,” the legislative leaders said.
Last week Chief Justice Matthew Durrant hand-delivered a letter to Schultz and Adams from the Utah Judicial Council — the group of judges that governs the state courts — calling HB512 a “dangerous” precedent that would undermine public trust in the courts.
It would be, the council wrote, “impossible to separate the partisan politics associated with legislative decisions from such a recommendation.”
Gov. Spencer Cox reposted the letter on social media, a strong indication that he did not support the changes in HB512.
During a meeting of the council earlier in the week Durrant said Lisonbee’s bill and others being debated this session were an attempt by the Legislature to “exert more influence over the judiciary.”
And Justice Paige Petersen urged the judges to take a stand against the bills.
“It seems our approach is: Can you please just punch us in the stomach instead of punching us in the face and [we will] be happy and neutral about it,” Petersen said. “No. It’s retribution. It’s obviously retribution and I’m not sure why we’re not saying that.”
But on Monday the council acknowledged that friction between the branches is a natural occurrence.
“The Utah Constitution wisely created three independent branches of government,” Durrant said in a statement on behalf of the council. “At times, there is tension, but that will not prevent the judiciary and the Legislature from working together to serve the people of Utah.”
Over the last few years, the courts have blocked the Legislature’s law banning most abortions, stopped an effort banning transgender girls from playing high school sports, struck down the Legislature’s attempt to undo a citizen-passed ballot initiative and voided a constitutional amendment aimed at overturning the court’s initiative ruling.
Republican lawmakers were upfront about their intent to impose some controls over the courts, including House Speaker Mike Schultz at one point suggesting that judges should be elected.
That idea never materialized, but several bills, including Lisonbee’s, would have changed the way the courts operate.
One bill, SB296, sponsored by Sen. Chris Wilson, R-Logan, would let the governor appoint the Supreme Court’s chief justice, rather than letting the justices choose. The governor’s pick would have to be confirmed by the Senate and then reappointed and reconfirmed every four years. That bill passed the Senate and is awaiting a vote in the House.
The council has agreed to remain neutral on that bill.