Utah State Bar flags threats to judicial independence
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Illustration: Brendan Lynch/Axios
The Utah State Bar is warning that the state Legislature is advancing bills it says could undermine judicial independence and tilt the balance of power away from the courts, following a series of rulings that angered GOP lawmakers.
Why it matters: State bar leaders say they're concerned by proposals they fear would weaken the judiciary, calling this legislative session the worst year yet for such efforts.
Zoom in: One bill, HB 262, opposed by the Utah State Bar, would raise the judicial retention vote from 50% to 67% — making it the highest in the nation.
- Another measure, HB 274, sponsored by House Speaker Mike Schultz, would remove all defense attorneys from the Utah Sentencing Commission and, instead, add law enforcement members.
- The Utah State Bar said it opposes Schultz's bill because it would skew the commission toward law enforcement and partisan viewpoints and erode its objectivity.
State of play: The proposed reforms follow a series of high-profile legal losses for the Republican-dominated Utah Legislature, fueling tension between the two branches.
- Last year, a Utah judge overturned the state's congressional maps in a yearslong redistricting case, siding with anti-gerrymandering advocates and adopting a map that creates a Democratic-leaning seat.
- That fight remains ongoing after Utah's Reps. Burgess Owens and Celeste Maloy on Monday filed a federal lawsuit challenging the map, Deseret News reported.
What they're saying: "The Legislature or the executive shouldn't regulate the lawyers or the judiciary," Utah State Bar president Kim Cordova told reporters at the state Capitol on Tuesday.
The latest: Over the weekend, Gov. Spencer Cox (R) signed legislation to add two justices to the five-member Utah Supreme Court, a move critics call "court-packing."
- The bill's sponsor, House Majority Leader Casey Snider (R-Paradise), told Utah News Dispatch the measure is intended to give the higher court more resources and improve its efficiency.
Yes, but: Cordova argued those resources would be better directed to the lower courts, which have a greater need for legal services.