New bill ‘goes too far,' says Utah Chief Justice Matthew Durrant in letter to lawmakers
SALT LAKE CITY () — In an unprecedented move, Chief Justice Matthew Durrant of the Utah Supreme Court hand-delivered a letter on behalf of the Judicial Council — which represents the state's courts — to the Utah Legislature, openly opposing a bill that would impact retention elections.
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
3 days ago
- Bloomberg
Hong Kong Bolsters Top Court With First Foreign Judge in a Year
Hong Kong has appointed a retired New Zealand judge to its top court, the first foreign justice named to the appellate body in over a year following record resignations that threatened to undermine confidence in the judicial system. The city's lawmakers on Wednesday approved William Young's appointment as a non-permanent judge at the Court of Final Appeal. The move partly restores overseas judges who quit after Beijing imposed a national security law and curbed political freedoms.
Bloomberg
4 days ago
- Bloomberg
The Real Trouble With Mexico's Judicial Overhaul
This truth defies any sugarcoating: Every alarming article you may have read about the consequences of Mexico's decision to elect its judiciary, in a vote that took place on Sunday, is essentially accurate. This was a capricious exercise designed by President Andrés Manuel López Obrador to radically change Mexico's justice system after the courts ruled against the government in several instances of his mandate, which ended in September. In the last months of his presidency, the septuagenarian leader known as AMLO channeled his inner tech bro and decided to move fast and break things — i.e, the judiciary: Half the country's judges would be replaced, starting with the Supreme Court, and an oversight body would be created to make sure judges don't deviate from their mandates. The remaining half will be changed in 2027. No real effort was made for a serious, well-thought reform to tackle the undeniable shortcomings of a judicial system that wasn't particularly helpful to Mexicans; everything would have to be done at maximum speed, no questions asked please.
New York Times
5 days ago
- New York Times
Mexico's Supreme Court Looks Set to Be Dominated by One Party
Mexico's governing Morena party looked poised to dominate the Supreme Court on Tuesday, moving closer to controlling the third branch of government, according to early results in the country's divisive, first-ever election to overhaul the courts at every level. At a news conference, the leader of the country's electoral authority, Guadalupe Taddei, said that over 90 percent of votes for court justices had been counted, and named the nine likely winners. In a sign of Morena's apparent success, the five women and four men projected to sit on the new Supreme Court were all named on lists distributed by Morena operatives and supporters to indicate to voters which candidates to choose. The nationwide elections on Sunday transformed the judiciary from an appointment-based system to one in which voters choose judges and magistrates — a hugely ambitious, far-reaching experiment by a large democracy. Morena leaders who pushed the overhaul into effect argue it will help root out corrupt officials, democratize the judiciary and begin to repair a justice system that most Mexicans see as unresponsive and broken. But opposition figures and legal experts criticized the plan, saying it discarded the career requirements of the old system and kept the door open for criminal groups to influence judges. Critics also argued that the reform could give Morena control over the judiciary, undermining the system of checks and balances. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
