Utah legal community warns against bills targeting judiciary
A coalition of legal professionals spoke out Wednesday outside the state Capitol against a series of proposed reforms aimed at the judicial branch.
State of play: The proposals follow Republicans' frustrations with the Utah Supreme Court after facing myriad legal setbacks in the past four years.
Zoom in: The legal community has expressed profound concern about the following bills:
HB 512, sponsored by Majority Whip Karianne Lisonbee (R-Clearfield), would create a committee made up of state lawmakers that would evaluate and recommend judges for retention. Those recommendations would appear on the ballot during retention elections.
In a statement, the Utah State Bar said the new committee would override the work the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission already does and would "inject politics" into the judicial system.
HB 451, sponsored by Rep. Jason Kyle (R-Huntsville), would require judges to receive 67% of votes to be retained rather than a simple majority.
Chris Peterson, a University of Utah law professor who ran as a Democratic candidate in the 2020 gubernatorial race, said both bills would create a "dangerous incentive for judges to no longer decide cases without fear or favor."
What they're saying: "Simply put, these bills are coordinated efforts to weaken the judiciary and remove critical checks on government power that should concern every Utahn," said Kristy Kimball, chair of the Health Law Section of the Utah State Bar Association.
Between the lines: Utah Supreme Court justices appear to agree, with Chief Justice Matthew Durant, in a rare rebuke, calling the package of bills "a broad attack on the independence of the judiciary," during a public meeting this week, the Salt Lake Tribune reported.
The other side: In response, during a Tuesday news conference, Senate President Stuart Adams said, "We're just trying to make good policy," and said he was open to input.
The intrigue: After 20 years in politics, Sen. Daniel Thatcher (R-West Valley City), known for voting against hotly contested bills from his own party, said he's never seen the judiciary weigh in to this degree on any issue.
"It's unprecedented," said Kent Davis, an attorney and former prosecutor.
The latest: About 900 Utah Bar members, former judges and legal professionals have signed on to a letter to the state legislators, calling on them to reject the bills.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
15 minutes ago
- Politico
Newsom floats withholding federal taxes as Trump threatens California
SACRAMENTO, California — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday suggested California consider withholding tens of billions in annual federal tax dollars amid reports Donald Trump is preparing funding cuts targeting the state. Newsom's suggestion came after CNN reported the president was considering a 'full termination' of federal grant funding for California's universities. 'Californians pay the bills for the federal government. We pay over $80 BILLION more in taxes than we get back,' the Democratic governor said in an X post Friday afternoon, referencing a recent analysis from the Rockefeller Institute that California contributed about $83 billion more in federal taxes in 2022 than it received back from Washington. 'Maybe it's time to cut that off,' he added. White House spokesperson Kush Desai, asked to comment on Newsom's post, threw cold water on mass funding cuts but blasted California for what he said were 'lunatic anti-energy, soft-on-crime, pro-child mutilation, and pro-sanctuary policies.' 'The Trump administration is committed to ending this nightmare and restoring the California Dream,' Desai said in a statement. 'No final decisions, however, on any potential future action by the Administration have been made, and any discussion suggesting otherwise should be considered pure speculation.' Trump has wielded federal funding as leverage to push its politics on California before. The president last month threatened to choke off the state's cash flow if a transgender athlete participated in a state girls' track meet. Newsom's biting suggestion comes as the governor escalates his anti-Trump rhetoric, even as he asks the White House for economic assistance. Newsom in early May blamed tariffs for ripping $16 billion from California's state budget, but has at the same time sought federal disaster relief for the recent Los Angeles wildfires and privately consulted Trump officials about ways to bolster the state's flagging film industry. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas also floated withholding federal taxes Friday in a post on the social media site Bluesky shortly before Newsom raised the issue. He dismissed the rumored grant cancellations as 'unconstitutional and vindictive.' 'We're the nation's economic engine and the largest donor state, and deserve our fair share,' Rivas wrote. 'I'll use every legal and constitutional tool available to defend CA — we must look at every option, including withholding federal taxes.' State Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire similarly vowed to defend California from 'this President's illegal and unprecedented attack on our state' in an X post Friday, but he stopped short of suggesting the state should withhold federal taxes. State leaders have tried to starve Trump's Washington of tax revenues before; in 2017, then-Senate President Kevin de León proposed a state tax credit scheme that would have allowed residents to sidestep a federal tax hike targeting California. Two New York mayoral candidates, former state Assemblymember Michael Blake and current state Sen. Jessica Ramos, similary suggested withholding the city's federal tax dollars during a Democratic primary debate Wednesday evening.
USA Today
19 minutes ago
- USA Today
Supreme Court rejects GOP challenge to Pennsylvania ruling about provisional ballots
Supreme Court rejects GOP challenge to Pennsylvania ruling about provisional ballots Show Caption Hide Caption Supreme Court hears arguments on judges' block on Trump birthright EO The justices heard arguments on whether its ok for judges to universally block President Donald Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on June 6 rejected a Republican challenge to a Pennsylvania court's ruling on provisional ballots, a case that could have restricted how much leeway state courts have to interpret federal election rules. During the 2024 election, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said voters should be able to cast provisional ballots if they failed to encase an absentee ballot in the required secrecy sleeve. State and national Republicans argued that would give voters an 'unauthorized do-over' for 'naked ballots' or for other mistakes on mail-in votes. And they said the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision usurped the power the Constitution gives state legislatures to set federal election rules. In November, the U.S. Supreme Court declined the GOP's emergency request to intervene as ballots were being cast. The Republican National Committee said the justices should decide the issue now because they can do so without worrying whether their decision would affect an ongoing election. Related: Supreme Court to decide if challenge to Illinois' grace period for mail-in ballots can proceed Pennsylvania Democrats countered that the 2024 ruling by the state supreme court was consistent with the text of state election law and with the intent of the legislators who set the rules. There's no good reason, Democrats said, for the Supreme Court to review what was a routine interpretation of a state law. Getting involved would invite appeals in 'any and every state-law election case," lawyers for the Pennsylvania Democratic Party told the justices. 'That is not a regime the Court should foster,' they wrote. The case is the second about election law the court agreed to hear next term. They will also decide whether a GOP congressman can challenge Illinois' decision to count mail-in ballots that are cast, but not received, before the end of Election Day.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
U.S. Federal Reserve's New Supervision Chief Will Wield Crypto Authority
The Federal Reserve — a key regulator of U.S. banking — is about to have a new vice chairman for supervision, Michelle Bowman, who will ultimately guide how the Fed oversees the financial system, possibly including how stablecoin issuers are regulated. After a tight party-line confirmation vote in the Senate approved the Kansas Republican's nomination 48-46, Bowman, who has already been serving as one of the Fed board's governors, will now be elevated to one of its leadership roles. The supervision job was created after the 2008 global financial meltdown and is meant to help focus the central bank's regulatory role as distinct from its better-known job marshaling U.S. monetary policy. Banking has been a sore spot for the crypto industry, and the Fed — alongside the two other bank agencies, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. — had taken a highly cautious crypto stance. The sector and its lawmaker allies have blamed the agencies for pressuring the banking system to cut off digital assets businesses and insiders from banking services, jeopardizing the industry's health, though this changed after Donald Trump became U.S. president again this year. In April, the Fed joined the other regulators in withdrawing earlier constraints on banks' interactions with the industry. The Fed's potential role over stablecoin issuers remains murky as the regulatory legislation is still being debated. Republicans lawmakers have worked hard to sideline the central bank from stablecoin duties, but the latest legislation being considered still foresees the Fed regulating stablecoin issuance in the banks it oversees, plus serving a role in assessing whether foreign regulators are up to snuff to handle issuers outside the U.S. While Democrats had favored a Fed duty as a watchdog over nonbank issuers, the current legislation being debated on the floor of the Senate puts the OCC in that position. In her new job, Bowman will serve under Fed Chair Jerome Powell, who has stated in the past that he'd defer to the vice chairman to lead the supervisory agenda. She replaces Democrat predecessor Michael Barr in the position, though he stayed on the board. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
