Latest news with #HB512
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion: Legislative dust finally settles
March is a stormy time for politics as the Legislature ends and the governor reviews hundreds of bills. We review the implications and fallout from the preceding month. Gov. Spencer Cox vetoed six bills and allowed two others to become effective without his signature. While some of his objections were technical, others reflected policy positions. He is requesting a special session to reform some bills he signed. Meanwhile, lawmakers will determine the appetite for veto overrides. What are the ramifications of Cox's exercise of gubernatorial powers? Cowley: Cox's vetoes signal his willingness to challenge the Republican-dominated Legislature, yet his special session request reflects collaboration with legislative counterparts. The governor is keenly aware of opportunities to fulfill his pre-session promises to provide (or in this case, protect) tax relief for seniors. One of the most debated decisions of where to expend ink was the pride flag bill. Cox allowed it to go into law without his signature, citing that even if he used his red pen, the Legislature would assuredly override it. This nuanced approach will likely result in Cox facing pressure to better define where he stands on the issue. In a move rarely undertaken by any executive branch, Cox declined to expand his power and vetoed SB296, which would have allowed him to choose the chief justice, preserving judicial autonomy. Pignanelli: 'They called me Veto Corleone. Because I vetoed 2,500 separate line-items in the budget.' — Jeb Bush Years ago, I conversed with a veteran lawmaker about the governor vetoing bills. He opined that lawmakers, including him, would erupt with anger at such insolence. However, the astute politician also observed that the governor's office is a muscle that needs exercise, and rejecting legislation maintains strength. He believed the executive pushback built parameters for future lawmaking, even if overridden. Cox's vetoes (and bills passed without signature) reaffirm his place in formulating tax and election policies. SB296 would have given Cox the ability to select the chief justice. There was a compromise by the courts and Utah bar (which this firm is honored to represent) to be neutral on this bill in exchange for dismissal of HB512, an aggressive restructuring of the judicial retention process. Thus, Cox's veto of the bill raised eyebrows. As Cox expressed to lawmakers, the courts (including the bar) did not request this action. However, this wrinkle in the agreement may propel an override or a potential future reexamination of judicial retention. Perhaps Cox's strategy is to assert a more decisive role in actions regarding the judicial branch. Political observers and the governor have increasingly warned about the number of bills introduced and passed every legislative session. In 2025, 962 bills and resolutions were introduced (surpassing the 2024 record of 942), and an almost record-breaking number passed. Is this an issue, and will it ever be resolved? Cowley: The public sees the astronomical volume of legislation coupled with headlines of perceived insignificant or even humorously unnecessary bills, and wonder if elected officials are squandering time and resources. As an insider, I can attest that weighty issues are addressed — tax reductions, educational freedom, etc. — but superfluous bills are a distraction. It's hard to argue that Utah would come to a screeching halt if all 582 bills didn't pass. There isn't a good solution other than encouraging legislators to focus on quality rather than quantity. Limiting the number of bills will only make each longer and more complex, akin to federal spending bills. Only those plagued with political obsession disease or severe insomnia read every word, thus minimizing public scrutiny. One way to curtail voluminous legislation is for the governor to more liberally use veto authority. Pignanelli: Decades ago, an arrogant legislator sponsored 20 bills and was chastised by fellow lawmakers and the media for burdening the system. Of course, I was that obnoxious politician who angrily claimed a constitutional prerogative to represent my constituents. So, I cannot join others in the complaint chorus. Despite the increasing bill flow, I am amazed that the system functions well. Still, modifications are needed to utilize interim sessions better for analyzing complex issues. Lawmakers with bills in similar subject areas should be encouraged to combine efforts. But again, I'm not pointing fingers. Sundance Film Festival announces that after 40 years in Utah, they will move to Boulder, Colorado, in 2027. Was this a political or economic decision? Cowley: Utah has more to offer than just free money. Outdoor Retailers threatened to leave over political differences. They even tried leveraging lawmakers for more incentive money and threw a tantrum when they didn't get their ransom, but eventually came back. I'll miss stargazing, but will sleep fine knowing our tax dollars aren't treated like Halloween candy. As with many rocky relationships, time apart might help Sundance see what a good thing they had with Park City. It may also open new opportunities utilizing the 'greatest snow on Earth,' like the X Games. Pignanelli: Our firm represented Sundance for several years, and they were aware of local political dynamics. Their decision was a financial consideration, as Colorado offered an incentive larger than Utah's proposal. The impact will be less than predicted. The festival is a lively event, but unique visitor attendance is dropping. A future return is likely, as Salt Lake City is more user-friendly.
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
After weeks of division, Utah legislative leaders announce deal with judiciary
Utah Supreme Court Justice Matthew Durrant speaks to a joint session of the House and Senate at the Capitol in Salt Lake City on the first day of the legislative session, Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch) A deal has been struck to solve one of the most contentious issues of the Utah Legislature's 2025 session. After weeks of outcry from Utah's legal community that Utah lawmakers were going too far by exerting their influence over the state's judicial branch of government, the state's top legislative leaders on Monday announced a compromise. Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, and House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, issued a prepared statement Monday saying an 'agreement' had been reached with the judiciary on a suite of bills that the Utah State Bar and other legal professionals rallied against last week, describing it as legislative overreach. The top Republican leaders said three controversial proposals 'will not proceed through the legislative process at this time.' They include: HB512, which would give legislators a say in judicial retention elections. HB451, which would require a justice or judge to receive at least 67% of the vote to be retained. An unnumbered but not yet publicly drafted bill by House Majority Leader Jefferson Moss, R-Saratoga Springs, that would increase the number of justices on the Utah Supreme Court. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX However, Adams and Schultz said four other bills — including SB296, which would give the governor and the Senate control over picking the Utah Supreme Court's next chief justice, and three others sponsored by Sen. Brady Brammer, R-Highland (SB203, SB204, and SJR9) — 'will continue to be considered and debated by the Legislature, with a position of neutrality from the Judicial Council.' 'Our system of government was designed to ensure that each branch operates independently, yet also relies on one another to function effectively,' Adams and Schultz said. 'At times, this dynamic creates natural and necessary friction between branches. However, we firmly believe that healthy debate and reform do not undermine democracy — they strengthen it.' Adams and Schultz said their aim is to 'preserve this legacy of excellence while improving transparency, efficiency and integrity within our courts.' Utah Senate passes bill to give governor, Senate control over picking Supreme Court chief justice 'The proposed changes are procedural updates, not an attack on the Judiciary,' the two legislative leaders added. 'The Utah Constitution entrusts the Legislature with a broad range of responsibilities in shaping the justice system — including creating courts, determining the number of justices, setting forth how a chief justice is chosen, setting up the nominating commissions for judges, confirming judges and setting retention elections, among others. These actions are not overreach; they are the Legislature fulfilling its constitutional duties.' The deal comes after Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Matthew Durrant came to the Utah Capitol last week to meet personally with Adams and Schultz. He hand-delivered a letter that outlined Durrant's concerns with legislative efforts that could potentially undermine the 'independence and integrity' of the judiciary, but he only specifically called out one bill: HB512, sponsored by House Majority Whip Karianne Lisonbee, R-Clearfield. The previous day, more than 900 Utah attorneys signed on to a letter calling on the Utah Legislature to reject all of the bills. Durrant's letter did not specifically mention SB296, sponsored by Senate Majority Whip Chris Wilson, R-Logan, but in a Judicial Council meeting on Monday last week, both he and Justice Paige Petersen expressed concerns. That day, Justice Paige Petersen urged 'kill this silly bill.' Utah chief justice delivers letter to lawmakers to oppose bill threatening judicial independence 'There's absolutely no reason for (the governor and the Senate) to be meddling in how we pick the chief justice,' she said, urging her colleagues to take a public position to oppose the bill. Michael Drechsel, assistant state court administrator at the Administrative Office of the Courts, told a Senate committee last week the judiciary opposed Wilson's bill, expressing concern that it would be an 'unwise use' of legislative authority. However, on Monday, Drechsel did not comment on SB296 in a House committee hearing, but Ron Gordon, the state court administrator, issued a news release later in the afternoon confirming the Judicial Council 'will take a neutral position' on SB296. In order to address concerns with the other bill, Lisonbee's HB512, 'the Judicial Council and the Legislature have engaged in discussions over the last several days and have found a mutually agreeable path forward,' the news release stated. 'The Utah Constitution wisely created three independent branches of government,' Durrant said in a prepared statement included in that release. 'At times, there is tension, but that will not prevent the Judiciary and the Legislature from working together to serve the people of Utah.' The news release added that the judiciary 'remains committed to working with the Legislature' to address several issues that lawmakers have grappled with during the 2025 session, including 'judicial performance standards and judicial retention in a way that provides information necessary for voters to make informed decisions; and the Judiciary's ability to operate as an independent branch of government.' Despite experts' warnings, bill to give Utah lawmakers a say in judge elections advances The Utah State Bar — which previously opposed HB512 and SB296, along with previous versions of Brammer's bills — also issued a statement applauding the deal between legislative leaders and the judiciary after what it described as a 'tumultuous legislative session.' 'The Bar is supportive of the Court's agreement,' the Bar said, also expressing 'relief' and gratitude that lawmakers withdrew from HB512, Lisonbee's bill to create a legislative committee that would allow legislators to offer recommendations directly on the ballot as to whether voters should retain or not retain judges. 'The withdrawal of HB512 preserves the independence of the judiciary and maintains the Constitution's separation of powers between our co-equal branches of government,' the Bar said. While it previously opposed SB296, given the Judicial Council's shift of position, the Bar said it 'will also take a neutral position on this bill.' 'A broad attack': Utah's judiciary fights bills threatening its independence 'The Bar wishes to thank the lawyers and law firms who put in so much time and effort to speak with legislators, write letters, hold press conferences, and conduct legislative meetings to express support for an independent judiciary,' the Bar said, also thanking its commissioners and governmental relations committee for their work — as well as specifically applauding Durrant, Dreschel and other court leadership. 'Legislators listened, and combined efforts made a difference,' the Bar said. Specifically, the Bar also thanked Brammer, Rep. Jordan Teuscher, Lisonbee, legislative leadership, and other 'lawyer legislators who worked behind the scenes to find resolution.' 'The Bar is looking forward to facilitating any committees or work groups that are created to reach the goal that allows the branches to promote judicial access and assist the Courts in being able to be efficient and productive,' the Bar added. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Axios
28-02-2025
- Politics
- Axios
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.
Yahoo
28-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
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.
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Utah chief justice delivers letter to lawmakers to oppose bill threatening judicial independence
Utah Supreme Court Justice Matthew Durrant speaks to a joint session of the House and Senate at the Capitol in Salt Lake City on the first day of the legislative session, Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch) Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Matthew Durrant came to the Utah Capitol on Thursday to sit down with the state's top Republican legislators and hand deliver a letter addressing one bill in particular that's been opposed by the Utah Judicial Council. In the letter — obtained by Utah News Dispatch shortly after Durrant met with House Speaker Mike Schultz and Senate President Stuart Adams on Thursday — Durrant outlines his concerns with legislative efforts that could potentially undermine the 'independence and integrity' of the judiciary, but he only specifically called out one bill: HB512. Despite experts' warnings, bill to give Utah lawmakers a say in judge elections advances That bill, sponsored by a member of GOP House leadership, House Majority Whip Karianne Lisonbee, R-Clearfield, would allow a committee of lawmakers to review judges based on no set standard and allow that committee to place a recommendation directly on the ballot, next to the judge's name, indicating whether lawmakers believe they should be retained or not. 'By creating a joint legislative committee on judicial performance and empowering that committee to provide recommendations as to whether individual judges should be retained for another term, HB 512 introduces partisan politics directly into the work of the Judiciary,' Durrant wrote in the letter. 'This unprecedented approach is not only dangerous but also detrimental to the public's trust in a fair and impartial judicial system and ultimately harmful to the citizens,' he added. Durrant referred back to his State of the Judiciary speech on the first day of the 2025 legislative session last month, when he quoted former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, saying 'judicial independence is not conferred so that judges can do as they please, it is conferred so they can do as they must.' By opposing HB512 'and other bills that may have the impact of undermining the independence and integrity of the Judiciary,' Durrant wrote that the Judicial Council 'is not suggesting otherwise' about the fact that the Utah Constitution does allow the Legislature to make policy decisions impacting the judiciary. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX 'Rather, the Judicial Council asserts that HB512 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 wrote. Putting a recommendation from a legislative committee on the ballot on whether a judge should be retained or not 'will inevitably be viewed as a partisan recommendation,' he said. 'It is simply impossible to separate the partisan politics associated with legislative decisions from such a recommendation,' Durrant wrote. He warned HB512 'will erode public trust and confidence in the decisions of the judiciary,' no matter the intentions of any of the legislators that sit on that committee. '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,' Durrant wrote. 'It will be viewed as an incentive for judges to act in their own self-interest, rather than upholding the rule of law.' Utah Supreme Court disputes lawmakers' allegations that it's not productive enough As he warned in his State of the Judiciary address — when he urged lawmakers to 'respect' the judiciary as a matter of public trust — Durrant wrote that a 'loss of trust is particularly damaging to the Judiciary.' 'Possessing neither the sword nor the purse, the Judiciary can fulfill its constitutional role only when the public trusts its impartiality and commitment to the rule of law,' Durrant wrote. Durrant also addressed arguments that HB512 would help provide voters more information to know how to vote in judicial retention elections — something both Lisonbee and Schultz have previously argued. He said voters 'already have more objective information about judges than any other person on the ballot.' He pointed to the existing Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission (JPEC), which already puts judges through a 'thorough, rigorous, unbiased review of their performance,' and it posts detailed reports about all of the judges on its website, which voters can access by searching judges' names. 'No other public officials in Utah are subject to a more thorough, objective, and public evaluation than judges,' Durrant wrote. 'If there are specific problems or deficiencies with judicial performance evaluations, they should be addressed through improvements to JPEC's process — not through HB512.' Durrant concluded his letter by saying Utahns 'deserve a Judiciary that is guided by the rule of law, not by political considerations.' 'By introducing partisan influence — whether real or perceived — HB 512 threatens to undermine judicial independence and public confidence in the Judiciary's role as a neutral arbiter of legal disputes,' Durrant wrote. 'For these reasons, the Judicial Council opposes HB512.' After Durrant's meeting with Schultz and Adams on Thursday, the letter was also emailed to all legislators on Capitol Hill, according to a Utah State Courts spokesperson. 'A broad attack': Utah's judiciary fights bills threatening its independence The letter comes after Utah Supreme Court Justice Paige Petersen expressed frustrations with another bill, SB296, which would give the governor the responsibility of picking the Utah Supreme Court's chief justice, subject to advice and consent of the Senate — and subject to reappointment every four years. 'My preference is kill this silly bill. There's absolutely no reason for (the governor and lawmakers) to be meddling in how we pick the chief justice,' Petersen said during Monday's Judicial Council meeting. Durrant, though he took a more tempered tone in that meeting, said he agreed that lawmakers appeared to be waging a 'broad attack on the independence of the judiciary.' Durrant's letter didn't acknowledge SB296 specifically, but Michael Drechsel, assistant state court administrator at the Administrative Office of the Courts, told lawmakers during a committee hearing Tuesday the judiciary is opposed to the bill. It's unclear whether Durrant's meeting or the letter will have an impact as lawmakers enter their final week of the 2025 session, which must end before midnight on March 7. Adams, R-Layton, did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Durrant's meeting with him, but when reporters pressed him on Petersen and Durrant's comments earlier this week, he said, 'I see it differently,' though he welcomed input on legislation. 'We're trying to knock the rough edges off, get all the input,' Adams said. Schultz, R-Hooper, who has previously been complimentary of Lisonbee's bill, has said he's supportive of the bill, which has said he sees as an effort to inform voters. Read Durrant's letter below. Judicial Council letter on HB 512 SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
