Latest news with #JasonKyle
Yahoo
05-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Will Utah become one of 9 states with primary runoff elections?
Utah House lawmakers voted to add runoff elections to the state's primary process on Tuesday with three days left in the 2025 legislative session. The bill aims to address the problem of candidates winning their party's nomination with a small share of the overall vote which has become commonplace since the state established a signature path to the ballot in 2014. The bill, HB231, which passed 50-20, would require that county clerks hold a runoff election 35 days after the June primary if no candidate receives a majority and the winning candidate does not lead by more than 10 percentage points. 'It's good for the person that's eventually elected and then also for the people that they represent,' bill sponsor Rep. Jason Kyle, R-Huntsville, told the Deseret News. 'Because if you get a critical mass of people ... you know that you're there supporting people that chose you.' In a statewide, legislative or congressional race where no candidate wins with a majority or a 10-percentage-point margin, the bill would require a rematch between the top two vote-getters in the same manner as a typical primary election but with just two names on the ballot. A previous version of the bill, introduced by Rep. Jordan Teuscher, R-South Jordan, would have required a runoff for every race without a majority winner, costing counties up to $2.7 million each cycle to repeat their primary election process. Teuscher handed the bill off to Kyle, who ran nearly identical legislation in 2023, because of a lack of 'bandwidth.' Kyle quickly changed the bill to exclude races with a winner that leads by more than 10 percentage points to decrease the fiscal impact and make it easier for county clerks. 'We have to balance what we want the outcomes to be, as far as the people being able to choose, and what makes the time and the money worth it,' Kyle said. Most House Democrats were joined by a handful of Republicans in opposing HB231 on Tuesday. House Minority Whip Sahara Hayes, D-Salt Lake City, said automatic runoff elections could deter participation instead of empowering voters. 'HB231 will contribute to voter fatigue and may discourage Utahns from participating in an additional election by mandating a runoff,' Hayes told the Deseret News. 'Our policies should focus on enhancing government efficiency and ensuring accessible elections.' Since 2020, there have been nine statewide, legislative or congressional races in Utah without a majority winner, Kyle said during the floor debate. Of these, four would have required a runoff election. This is a 10-year-old issue in Utah. In 2014, the Legislature passed the now-infamous SB54, which allowed an unlimited number of candidates to qualify for primary elections if they reach a signature-gathering threshold. Before SB54 became law, Utah voters could participate in primary elections only if state delegates failed to coalesce behind a candidate with 60%-70% of support during a state party convention. In such cases, the top two vote-getters from the convention would face off in a primary election managed by the state open to all party members. These two-way primaries ensured a winner with majority support. Recent years have seen a number of high profile races won with narrow pluralities, most notably the 2020 gubernatorial election where Utah Gov. Spencer Cox won the GOP nomination with 36.2% of the vote in a four-way race, with former Gov. Jon Huntsman receiving 35%. Under the current language of HB231, Sen. John Curtis' 2024 victory with 48.7% in a four-way race, and Rep. Mike Kennedy's victory with 38.8% in a five-way race, would not have required runoffs because they both won by at least 10%. There are nine other states that require runoffs in their primary election processes — seven states require a runoff if no candidate receives a majority, North Carolina requires one if the first-place candidate gets less than 30% and South Dakota requires one if no candidate exceeds 35% in a three-way race. While it is extremely late in the session, Kyle thinks that there is more appetite to address election concerns this year than most. Almost immediately after Kyle's bill passed it received a Senate floor sponsor in Sen. Dan McCay, R-Riverton.
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
14-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Utah State Bar claims 5 proposed judiciary reform bills may be ‘unconstitutional'
SALT LAKE CITY () — The Utah State Bar has openly come out against several bills that are moving through Utah's Capitol Hill that, if passed, would impact the role of the judiciary branch. The Bar said the five bills – , , , , and – may be unconstitutional because they remove powers from the judicial branch and undermine the separation of powers. All but one bill is sponsored by (R-Pleasant Grove). The remaining bill is sponsored by Rep. Jason Kyle (R-Huntsville). A group of 32 lawyers penned a letter to Senate and House leadership expressing concerns alongside the bar and urging lawmakers to assess the long-term implications of the forms. 'Notably, these bills will accelerate the erosion of public confidence in our judicial system and threaten the right of access to the courts of individuals and associations, including many business associations critical to the economic health of the state,' the lawyers wrote. The Utah State Bar said it has met with several legislators to express their concerns. These lawmakers have reportedly expressed a willingness to hear from lawyers and work with the Bar to find a resolution of the concerns. The Utah State Bar said this bill restricts the current standards for individuals and associations to file legal action on behalf of injured parties. It also gives new powers to the Utah Attorney General's Office to file civil actions of 'significant public importance' without qualifications for standing. Sen. Brammer, the bill's sponsor, said S.B. 203 would protect the integrity of the courts and help them from becoming a 'forum de jour' for out-of-state interests. It would also maintain access to the justice system for individuals with grievances. The State Bar, however, argues the bill attempts to change long-standing common law principles of standing. Local defense attorney Greg Skordas that the bill is 'an attempt by the legislature to make it harder for groups to challenge the constitutionality of laws they pass.' According to the Utah State Bar, S.B. 204 would create a right of 'suspensive appeal' for government defendants when a plaintiff challenging the constitutionality of a state law has been granted an injunction. The suspensive appeal would effectively remove the injunction at the request of the defendant. 'Defendants would be able to appeal a preliminary injunction straight to the Supreme Court and the law would not be enjoined during the pendency of the appeal,' The State Bar said. 'This adds new procedure to legal standards to the existing rule governing injunctions in the Utah Code. Additionally, it appears to usurp judicial authority by placing the status of the injunction in the hands of the defendant.' Sen. Brammer saying it simply seeks to ensure that legal tools are used in a way that respects all three branches of the government while also addressing concerns about the overuse of injunctions by courts to block laws passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. 'I believe this will help protect the integrity of the process of upholding the rule of law in Utah,' said Brammer. The Utah State Bar said this resolution and bill work together to grant legislative auditors the authority to require the production of privileged information or information prepared in anticipation of litigation from individuals or entities subject to an audit by the legislative auditor. 'This legislation attempts to govern the practice of law by altering the nature of the attorney-client privilege and the ability for a government client to rely on the confidentiality of the communications with their counsel,' the State Bar argued. Neither the bill nor resolution have been heard on the Senate floor as of Friday, Feb. 14. The final bill the Utah State Bar has raised concerns over is H.B. 154, which would to retain a judge in judicial retention elections from 50% to 67%. The Utah State Bar said this increase would be the highest in the nation, making it difficult to attract and retain qualified judges. 'This will allow outside and special interests to campaign against judges when they only have to convince one-third of the populace to vote against a judge,' said the Bar. 'No need to change what is a very successful and nationally recognized judicial retention process.' Some Senate leaders previously expressed some doubt about the bill, which was proposed by Rep. Kyle. Sen. Kirk Cullimore (R-Draper) he was aware of other states that have higher thresholds than Utah but was not sure the proposal passed constitutional muster based on retention elections. 'I guess it's not totally off the wall, I just haven't heard about it or thought about it in the context of Utah law or the Utah Constitution,' said Cullimore. The list of bills seeking to make adjustments to the judicial branch comes at a time when Utah's legislative and judicial branches have been at odds. In the summer of 2024, Utah's Supreme Court handed a blow to Utah's legislature, ruling that they when they gutted a citizen-led initiative to create an independent redistricting commission to draw new Congressional boundaries. Utah's highest court said the move may have violated Utahn's right to 'alter and reform' their government but the case is still moving through the lower courts. House and Senate leaders both called the Supreme Court's decision 'one of the worst rulings' they have ever seen and promised judicial reforms. The Utah legislature was dealt another blow when Utah Supreme Court justices from the 2024 November ballot. The Supreme Court argued that the legislature failed to meet a constitutionally required publication requirement, which was another decision that frustrated legislative leaders. Lindsay Aerts contributed to this report. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
