New bill ‘goes too far,' says Utah Chief Justice Matthew Durrant in letter to lawmakers
The bill — 'Judicial Retention Changes' — would to recommend to voters through their ballots which judges should be retained and which should be removed.
In the letter — delivered on behalf of the 16-member council to the House Speaker, Senate President, and sent to all legislators — the council said the bill would erode public trust and confidence in the decisions of the Judiciary.
Separation of powers? Bill to create lawmaker panel for recommending judicial retentions advances
'This will happen regardless of the intent of any individual legislator on the committee and regardless of how careful committee members are in their review of a judge,' wrote Durrant. 'The possibility of a negative recommendation from the committee will be viewed by the public as an incentive for judges to make politically palatable decisions rather than decisions that are required by the law.'
READ NEXT: 7 key ways the Utah legislature could change the judiciary
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Karianne Lisonbee (R-Syracuse), has argued, however, that voters need more information on retaining judges. She said it was within the legislature's purview to decide how that happens, pointing to Utah's constitution, which reads, 'judicial retention elections shall be held on a nonpartisan ballot in a manner provided by statute.'
'The idea that the judiciary is completely independent of the legislature is simply false,' Lisonbee said.
Durrant's letter said that the council was not disputing that.
'In opposing HB 512, and other bills that may have the impact of undermining the independence and integrity of the Judiciary, the Judicial Council is not suggesting otherwise,' it reads. 'Rather, the Judicial Council asserts that HB 512 goes too far by intervening in the core functions of the judiciary and poses a substantial threat to the Judiciary's ability to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities.'
Durrant's letter said the bill would only serve to incentivize judges to act in their own self-interest, rather than upholding their oath to the rule of law. He argued voters have more objective information about judges than any other person on the ballot as judges are subject to a 'thorough, rigorous, unbiased review by the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission.'
Legal professionals protest against bills that seek to reshape Utah's judicial branch
These evaluations – which are – he said do not try to influence voters, but provide relevant and objective information.
'The citizens of Utah deserve a Judiciary that is guided by the rule of law, not by political considerations. The Utah Constitution establishes a Judiciary in which judges are free to decide cases based on the law and the facts, without regard for the identities of the litigants or political consequences,' wrote Durrant.
The judicial council's dissent of H.B. 512 comes on the heels of urging lawmakers to reject a handful of bills that would reform Utah's judiciary.
Over the last year, Utah lawmakers have also expressed their disappointment in Utah's judiciary after several Utah Supreme Court summer rulings went against the legislature. These rulings included voiding and from the November 2024 election ballot, as well as to move forward in the lower courts.
Top lawmakers respond
House Speaker Mike Schultz, (R-Hooper), who has been highly critical of the high court's rulings against the legislature, seemed to defend the bill and said that 'healthy debate and reform do not undermine democracy — they strengthen it.'
'The Utah Constitution assigns the legislature the responsibility to review and adjust many aspects of both the executive and judicial branches,' he said in a statement to ABC4. 'We welcome and encourage all to make their voices heard on this, and other important issues.'
Lindsay Aerts contributed to this report.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
4 days ago
- Bloomberg
Russian Hackers Lurked in US Courts for Years, Took Sealed Files
Russian government hackers lurked in the records system of the US courts for years and stole sensitive documents that judges had ordered sealed from public view, according to two people familiar with the matter and a report seen by Bloomberg News. The attackers had access to what was supposed to be protected information for multiple years, the report on the breach shows. They gained access by exploiting stolen user credentials and a cybersecurity vulnerability in an outdated server used by the federal judiciary, according to the report, which says the hackers specifically searched for sealed records.
CNN
4 days ago
- CNN
Federal courts go old school to paper filings after hack to key system
Federal district courts are beginning to implement new approaches to guard confidential information in cases following a breach of the electronic databases used in the judiciary. The policy changes move an already vulnerable and antiquated record-keeping system to paper-only filings in some instances after a major cyber security breach of federal court records this summer that may have been perpetrated by a foreign government. Federal courts that have announced changes to how attorneys make sealed filings include are in Washington state, Florida, New York, Maryland and Virginia, representing only a small portion of the business of the federal judiciary across the country. Stanley Bastian, the chief judge of the Eastern District of Washington federal court, which includes the cities of Spokane and Yakima, ordered that as of this week, all documents being filed in that court under seal or for a judge's review only were to be filed only on paper, as 'the best way to secure sensitive case documents while ensuring continued access to all public court records.' In the Southern District of Florida, including Miami and West Palm Beach, Chief Judge Cecilia Altonaga ordered that attorneys send in confidential filings in an even more specific way: by delivering pages to the clerk's office in a plain envelope marked 'SEALED DOCUMENT.' Chief Judge Mark Davis of the Eastern District of Virginia, which presides over Northern Virginia, the Tidewater area and Richmond, also directed his courthouse to only accept sensitive filings on paper. 'In response to recent cyberattacks directed at public and private sector computer systems, including attacks directed at the judiciary, information technology specialists have advised this Court of the need to take additional steps to better secure our case management system,' Davis wrote in an order late last month. 'Public users enjoy direct access to this Court's electronic filing system through PACER and CM/ECF, and while this access creates cybersecurity vulnerabilities, there is a vital need to preserve the integrity of this critical public resource.' In Maryland, attorneys can submit sealed filings on paper in person or via US mail, Chief Judge George Russell III said in an order this week. The chief judge in Brooklyn's federal court also changed filing procedures for the Eastern District of New York, setting up a submission process online outside of the case management/electronic filing system (also known as CM/ECF) that the court uses. While sealed filings can be submitted by attorneys electronically to a court, generally aren't able to be viewed by the public in the federal court records database online, called Pacer. They are often used in criminal cases to protect sensitive information about defendants, victims or others under investigation. The Administrative Office of the US Courts, which is the central administrator for the judicial branch of government, said last week it was working to further enhance security to prevent future attacks and protect sensitive documents. But it is up to each court to set their own policies for intaking filings. Officials working in the courts have long warned the systems could be vulnerable to cyber attacks. The New York Times reported that investigators have found evidence the Kremlin was 'at least partly responsible' in the recent breach of the federal case management system. CNN has not independently confirmed this report. However, President Donald Trump on Wednesday reacted to the alleged Russian involvement, saying, 'Are you surprised?' 'That's what they do. They're good at it. We're good at it. We're actually better at it,' the president told reporters at the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC. Asked whether he would raise the incident with Russian President Vladimir Putin when he meets with him in Alaska on Friday, Trump said: 'I guess I could.' CNN's John Fritze contributed to this report.
WIRED
4 days ago
- WIRED
The First Federal Cybersecurity Disaster of Trump 2.0 Has Arrived
Aug 14, 2025 6:20 AM The breach of the US Courts records system came to light more than a month after the attack was discovered. Details about what was exposed—and who's responsible—remain unclear. Photo-Illustration:The second Trump administration has its first federal cybersecurity debacle to deal with. A breach of the United States federal judiciary's electronic case filing system, discovered around July 4, has pushed some courts onto backup paper-filing plans after the hack compromised sealed court records and possibly exposed the identities of confidential informants and cooperating witnesses across multiple US states. More than a month after the discovery of the breach—and in spite of recent reports from The New York Times and Politico that Russia was involved in perpetrating the hack—it is still unclear exactly what happened and which data and systems were affected. Politico first reported the breach of the 'case management/electronic case files,' or CM/ECF, system, which may have impacted criminal dockets, arrest warrants, and sealed indictments. The CM/ECF system also suffered a breach in 2020 during the first Trump administration, and Politico reported on Tuesday that, in the recent attack, hackers exploited software vulnerabilities that remained unaddressed after being discovered five years ago in response to that first incident. Security researchers say that gaps in public information about the situation are concerning, particularly when it comes to lack of clarity on what data was affected. 'We're more than a month into detecting this intrusion and still don't have a full accounting of what's impacted,' says Jake Williams, a former NSA hacker and current vice president of research and development at Hunter Strategy. 'If we don't have sufficient logging to reconstruct attack activity, that would be extremely disappointing, because this system has been repeatedly targeted over the years.' In response to a request for comment, the United States Courts referred WIRED to its August 7 statement, which says the federal judiciary 'is taking additional steps to strengthen protections for sensitive case documents' and 'further enhancing security of the system.' The courts also mention that the 'vast majority of documents filed with the Judiciary's electronic case management system are not confidential and indeed are readily available to the public,' while conceding that 'some filings contain confidential or proprietary information that are sealed from public view.' The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the scope of the breach or who perpetrated it. Reports this week that Russia was involved in the attack or may be the sole perpetrator have been difficult to interpret, given other indications that espionage actors backed by multiple countries—and possibly organized crime syndicates—may have been involved in or piggybacking on the breach for their own exfiltration. John Hultquist, chief analyst in Google's Threat Intelligence Group, says it is not uncommon to see multiple actors poking at a sensitive, and potentially vulnerable, system. 'Investigations are regularly targeted by cyberespionage actors from several countries,' he says. News of the breach comes as the Trump administration has continued to slash the federal workforce, including combing intelligence and cybersecurity agencies to remove officials or pressure them to resign. 'I think federal investigators probably know who was behind the attack, but given the climate, I would suspect that no one wants to say with certainty,' Hunter Strategy's Williams says. Multiple administrations have struggled to get a handle on insidious espionage operations, particularly campaigns perpetrated by Chinese and Russian actors. But researchers emphasize that vulnerabilities enabling the attack on CM/ECF should have been addressed after the 2021 breach. 'Enforcing policies to require that sealed or highly sensitive documents be handled via air-gapped systems or secure isolated networks rather than through CM/ECF or PACER would have dramatically limited exposure. And this was actually recommended post-2021,' says Tim Peck, senior threat researcher at the cybersecurity firm Securonix. 'Instituting consistent, centralized logging—among other things—across all disparate CM/ECF instances could have enabled earlier detection and rapid mitigation before data exfiltration escalated as far as it did.' In other words, highly targeted systems like those of the US Courts are likely going to suffer breaches. But the best way to reduce the likelihood and severity of these attacks is to make sure you fix the flaws after they're exploited the first time around.
