Latest news with #KarianneLisonbee
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Utah's House to elect new leadership. Here's who's running
SALT LAKE CITY () — Utah's House majority will hold elections for a new House Majority Leader on Tuesday, June 3, and several hopefuls could usher in a completely new leadership team under House Speaker Mike Schultz (R-Hooper). The announcement that Rep. Jefferson Moss (R-Eagle Mountain) will be moving to the executive branch to head the Governor's Office of Economic Opportunity (GOEO) leaves a vacancy for the House majority's number two leadership role, Majority Leader. Multiple sources with knowledge of internal communications with the caucus confirm to ABC4 that two members of the current leadership will be vying for it, Reps. Karianne Lisonbee (R-Syracuse) and Casey Snider (R-Logan). Under House rules, anyone currently serving in leadership and running for an open position must resign from their current leadership position. That means that Lisonbee's current position as Majority Whip and Snider's current position as Assistant Whip will also open up. Lt. Gov. Henderson gets more death threats over Primary signature gathering issues — How will they be handled? The following Republican representatives, listed in order alphabetically by last name, are running for the open positions: Karianne Lisonbee (R-Syracuse) Casey Snider (R-Logan) Jeff Burton (R-Spanish Fork) Candice Pierucci (R-Herriman) Jordan Teuscher (R-South Jordan) Ryan Wilcox (R-North Ogden) Bridger Bolinder (R-Grantsville) Cory Maloy (R-Lehi) Karen Petersen (R-Smithfield) Rex Shipp (R-Parowan) Gov. Cox signs executive order to establish new council focused on Utah's future and 'quality of life' Another possible shift, Rep. Teuscher is currently the powerful House Rules Chair, who helps decide which bills make it out of the rules committee to be heard by the larger body. If he wins the Whip position, he would likely have to give up that role due to the time constraints. However, it's at the Speaker's discretion who he appoints as Rules Chair. 'One of the primary responsibilities of the Whip is to serve as a liaison with the Senate and to help unify and strengthen our caucus,' said Teuscher. 'I believe I bring the right combination of experience, skills, temperament, and relationships to be effective in that role—and to ensure our caucus continues to drive the conversation on the most important issues facing our state and is successful in getting our policy objectives to the finish line.' Teuscher has ushered in some controversial legislation in the past, most recently the ban on collective bargaining, HB267, which currently faces a referendum that will be put before voters to decide whether or not to overturn it after labor groups While the current field of candidates is pretty settled, the source said, representatives do have until Monday morning to declare their intent to run. It's also possible that representatives not included in this list could be nominated by the body during the election for any of the open positions. Utah unveils new housing dashboard in effort to hit 'moonshot' goal of building 35,000 starter homes The vacancy by Rep. Moss is also adding another wrinkle to the elections. His seat has yet to be filled via a special election, decided by the Utah County Republican Party. That means that the House majority will have 60 members voting in the election, not 61, leaving the possibility for a tie. House majority elections require a simple majority vote, and it's unclear exactly what would happen in that case, however, the rules would suggest that voting would continue until there is a majority. Political insiders who spoke with ABC4 about the race say it is unusual for two members of the current leadership to be running against each other. Typically, those already in leadership positions tend to slide into a vacant and more prominent role. Those insiders also say there is pent-up demand to be in leadership, as evidenced by the number of people running. The House majority's elections are not public, but the new leadership team will be announced Tuesday evening after the vote. President Trump gives Elon Musk an Oval Office send-off Musk slams New York Times after report on alleged drug use GOP plan could raise credit requirements for Pell Grant recipients Musk appears in Oval Office with black eye Utah's House to elect new leadership. Here's who's running Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lawmakers debate the lieutenant governor's role in overseeing elections
Lawmakers can't make up their minds about what role the lieutenant governor should play in cleaning up voter rolls and overseeing gubernatorial elections. A Senate committee rejected House Majority Whip Karianne Lisonbee's comprehensive voter roll cleanup bill on Monday, even after she removed the most controversial provision which would have required the lieutenant governor to end the state's contract with the Electronic Registration Information Center. Also on Monday, a different Senate committee gave the go-ahead for a bill that would allow the lieutenant governor to hand off her election oversight authority to the attorney general if a dispute arises in an election that the lieutenant governor is running in. Three days earlier, the House unanimously passed a separate bill that would allow the creation of a temporary position each election cycle to do the exact same thing if there were questions that needed to be resolved in the lieutenant governor's race. Lisonbee's bill, HB332, originally would have forced Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson to exit ERIC by July 6, with a list of requirements for entering into an agreement with another state or third-party contractor. Lisonbee, R-Clearfield framed the bill as a direct response to a December audit that found 1,400 deceased individuals on Utah voter rolls. However, she started working on the bill much earlier when a wave of Republican states left the voter roll management system after it was accused of doubling as a Democratic voter outreach program. The bill also clarified best practices and outlined new requirements for the Lieutenant Governor's Office, which is responsible for providing guidance to county clerks. The bill would have required the lieutenant governor to: Report every other year to the Legislature on its efforts to maintain the accuracy of voter rolls Ensure that voter rolls are compared to death certificate information 90 days before even-year elections and twice in odd-numbered years. Register with a federal program that allows states to check an individual's immigration status with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Update the voter registration process to ensure that individuals who cannot prove their citizenship do not receive a ballot for state elections. Despite Lisonbee's clear concessions to gain Senate approval, there was little explanation given by members of the Senate Business and Labor Standing Committee before they rejected HB332 in a 3-4 vote that hinged on Majority Leader Kirk Cullimore, R-Draper, who chimed in at the last minute to vote 'no.' While Lisonbee's bill will not make it to a Senate floor vote, it is just one of several that would impact the lieutenant governor's oversight of elections in the state of Utah. During the 2024 election cycle, former gubernatorial candidate Phil Lyman alleged foul play because of a perceived conflict of interest with Henderson, as the state's chief election officer, overseeing her own reelection as the running mate to Utah Gov. Spencer Cox. The Lieutenant Governor's Office does not administer any elections or count any ballots. All election administration is conducted by county clerks, who are directly elected in partisan races. This legislative session, there are multiple bills seeking to address concerns about the perceived conflict of interest with the state's system for election oversight ahead of the 2028 gubernatorial election in which Henderson has been rumored to be a prospective candidate. On Monday, a Senate committee unanimously approved a bill that would authorize the lieutenant governor to delegate specific oversight responsibilities to one or more county clerks if the governor is seeking reelection or if the lieutenant governor is seeking another office. The bill would also allow the state attorney general to act with the authority of the lieutenant governor to resolve disputes over election law, determine which records can be released and investigate allegations if there are complaints about the lieutenant governor having a conflict of interest. The sponsor of SB0341, Election Modifications, Sen. Mike McKell, R-Spanish Fork, told committee members that the bill aims to enhance election confidence while respecting the results of a recent Sutherland Institute survey that found that three-quarters of Utah voters prefer the person who oversees elections to be elected. 'This is one of the least controversial election bills this session,' said McKell, who is the brother-in-law of Utah Gov. Spencer Cox. Another bill, passed unanimously in the House on Friday, would dovetail with McKell's to remove the lieutenant governor from conflicts of interest. But the original version of the bill was set to become one of the most controversial election bills of the session. Rep. Ryan Wilcox's HB369 initially sought to transfer all election responsibilities from the Lieutenant Governor's Office to a newly created elections director position. Under the previous version of the bill, the state's new chief elections officer would be appointed by a committee of five county clerks who had previously been selected by the governor, state auditor and legislative leadership. After failing to gain consensus among stakeholders across the political spectrum, HB369 was drastically changed. The bill would now allow the attorney general, auditor and treasurer to appoint an individual to serve 'as a conflict of interest election officer' for one election cycle. The individual must be familiar with state election law but must not be a currently elected official or public employee. Similar to McKell's proposal, Wilcox's bill would allow the temporarily appointed officer to respond with the authority of the lieutenant governor to any controversy in connection to a race in which the governor or lieutenant governor is running. Looking forward to larger reforms, Wilcox's bill would also create the temporary 'election oversight task force' which would be tasked with recommending changes to the state's current system of election oversight and administration. The task force would be comprised of seven members designated by statewide officials, legislative leadership and the Utah Association of Counties. The Utah Legislature created the office of lieutenant governor in 1976 to replace the secretary of state position. Utah and Alaska are the only states in the country where the role of chief election official is held by a lieutenant governor. In 33 states, the chief election official is elected. In the remaining 17 states, and the District of Columbia, the chief election official is appointed by the governor, state legislature or a board or commission.
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
25-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Despite experts' warnings, bill to give Utah lawmakers a say in judge elections advances
Rep. Karianne Lisonbee, R-Clearfield, works at her desk on the House floor at the Capitol in Salt Lake City on Thursday, Feb. 6, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch) Retired judges. The Utah State Bar. Courts administrators. Academic experts who study judicial retention systems across the country. All of them warned against upending Utah's current and nationally revered judicial retention process. More than a dozen people urged lawmakers to stop HB512 in its tracks during the bill's first committee hearing Monday, warning it could inject politics into a system that's supposed to be nonpartisan, lead judges to be beholden to public opinion rather than facts, and even violate separation of powers between the state's three branches of government. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX And yet, after listening to all of these warnings, the House Judiciary Committee voted 7-2 to endorse HB512 and advance it to the House floor. Only the committee's two Democrats — Reps Veronica Mauga, D-Salt Lake City, and Grant Miller, D-Salt Lake City — voted against it. The bill's sponsor, House Majority Whip Karianne Lisonbee, R-Clearfield, framed her bill as an effort to give voters more information about how to vote in judicial retention elections. She said every election cycle she and other lawmakers get constant questions from voters on how they should vote, indicating that 'many Utahns feel like they don't have enough information to make informed decisions.' 'It is about time that voters have the information they need to vote in judicial retention elections,' she said. So Lisonbee wants to create a new committee called the Legislative Committee on Judicial Performance, made up solely of nine legislators appointed by the House speaker and Senate president, and only two of whom would be required to be from a different political party. That committee would be free to hold public hearings to evaluate judges based on no set standard. If the legislative committee votes to recommend — or not recommend — a judge for retention, that recommendation would then be printed next to the judge's name on the ballot. It would also be printed in the voter information pamphlet. Lisonbee said it would be up to the committee's discretion whether they review a judge or not. Lisonbee's bill is just one of at least eight bills aimed at creating new rules for the judiciary — part of an effort a leader of the Utah State Bar recently characterized as a 'revenge streak' after at least two high-profile rulings last summer that angered legislators because the courts sided against lawmakers. Taken together, legal experts worry all of these bills could disrupt the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary, which is supposed to keep the other branches of government in check — but HB512 is of particular concern to the Bar. Utah already has a judge review body called the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission (JPEC), which provides voters nonpartisan information regarding how judges score on factors including legal ability, integrity and judicial temperament, and administrative skills. Lisonbee's bill would not replace JPEC, but the legislative committee would be a whole new, separate body that judges would need to answer to. 'Revenge streak': Utah Bar opposes flurry of bills flexing legislative influence on judiciary Utah's existing JPEC already publishes detailed reports on every judge on its website and provides information for voters in voter pamphlets — but not directly on the ballot. For the 2024 election, performance evaluations for 50 judges were included in that year's voter information pamphlet and the group reported seeing a surge of interest on its website after voters received their ballots. But to Lisonbee, JPEC isn't doing enough to inform voters. 'JPEC may do a great job, but the voters are not seeing it, and they are not feeling it. It is not something the voters are relying on,' Lisonbee said, arguing that's shown by a lack of variability across counties when it comes to voter retention, which is usually an 80% to 20% split vote. 'So instead of a perfunctory vote against, it seems to me that an informed vote — whether in support or against — would be a preferable exercise of a fundamental right,' Lisonbee said. Only one person, Maryann Christensen with the conservative group Utah Legislative Watch, encouraged lawmakers to support HB512, calling the current system 'flawed.' She said Utahns rarely vote not to retain judges, pointing to a case in 2006 when a controversial former 3rd District Court Judge Leslie Lewis was ousted by voters. Lewis lost her bench two years before the Legislature created JPEC in 2008, and six years before the first election cycle that JPEC's evaluations became available to Utahns, in 2012. Questions about why Utah judges tend to score high and be retained are not new. On its website, JPEC addresses frequently asked questions, including why so many judges have scores that 'meet or exceed minimum performance standards.' That's because judges with unfavorable evaluations often step down from the bench before the next election, according to JPEC. Judges also receive confidential midterm evaluations from JPEC, which give judges feedback to improve their performance before their next evaluation. Additionally, JPEC notes Utah already has one of the most rigorous state judicial appointment processes in the country, resulting in high-performing judges. Lisonbee anticipated concerns that her bill would violate separation of powers principles, threaten the judiciary as an independent body and allow the Legislature to put its thumb on the scale when it comes to judicial retention elections. She claimed those arguments are simply 'not true' — and that the Legislature has not only a right, but a role to play in setting rules the judiciary must adhere to. 'Our constitution constantly places the Legislature back into the middle of the administration of the courts,' Lisonbee said. 'To say that the courts are an ivory tower off to the side that the Legislature should not interact with is simply not in accordance with the way that our constitution is structured.' She also argued 'the idea that the judiciary is fully independent from the Legislature is simply false, and is unconstitutionally false. It is structurally meant to be tied to the Legislature.' But following her comments, the vast majority of people that weighed in on HB512 during Monday's public hearing — 13 out of 14 speakers — urged lawmakers to vote it down. A former Utah lawmaker, Rep. Lowry Snow, a Republican, was the first to speak against it. He was one of the architects of JPEC when he was serving as president of the Utah State Bar. 'Tap the brakes on this legislation. There are serious issues,' he said, noting the bill would not enact any 'standards' for the legislative committee to review judges against. With ballots out, judges' review group sees surge in interest The Utah State Bar has also strongly opposed the bill. Mark Morris, a Bar commissioner, said HB512 'goes far beyond the stated goals of merely educating voters and creating more transparency, a concept with which we agree.' 'The only concern a judge should have is applying facts to the law dispassionately,' he said. But if HB512 becomes law, Morris said legal experts worry 'that a judge will no longer be concerned solely with applying facts to the law, but be concerned with public opinion, be concerned with the views of a committee.' 'It should never be in the mind of a judge when making a decision whether the public opinions or even the committee opinions will be offended by a particular result,' he said. Morris also pointed out Utah law currently bans electioneering within 150 feet of a polling place, arguing that if HB512 becomes law, electioneering would occur 'within three inches of the name on a ballot.' That's the Bar's biggest concern, he said. Michael Drexel, assistant state court administrator at the Administrative Office of the Courts, also opposed HB512. 'I've spoken to enough legislators this session to realize that there is frustration and disappointment with the judiciary, and I suspect that this legislation is coming in part from that frustration and disappointment,' Drexel said. 'But that shouldn't be the basis for making changes to the law that are fundamentally inconsistent with foundational principles of three co-equal branches of government and election integrity.' 'For the judiciary to serve the people, judges must be free to make decisions driven by the law and the facts and not based on who the litigants are and how they might react to those decisions,' Drexel added. To complaints that judges need to be closer to the people, Drexel said they're already on the 'front lines.' 'They look in the eyes of mothers and fathers and separate them from their children for life,' he said. 'They look into the eyes of defendants and put them in prison. They see it firsthand, and they do care about doing their job well and with fidelity.' Drexel, however, also welcomed any discussion to help better inform voters. 'If there's a desire to give voters more information, you will find that we will be there at any conversation to discuss how we can be part of that process.' However, Drexel argued HB512 it's not the 'solution to the problem of voters needing more information,' adding that there's likely more information available to them through JPEC's process than voters are currently 'digesting.' 'But I'm certainly open to the possibility that there are key questions that voters want to answer about judges as they're deciding how to vote that maybe is not as accessible to them as it possibly could be,' he said. Two retired judges urged lawmakers not to support HB512. They included Kevin Allen, a former 1st District Court judge, and David Connors, a former 2nd District Court judge. Allen spoke against opening up judicial evaluations to a public hearing where 'people can come and say whatever they want.' He warned that would be 'a very dangerous path to go down' that would be 'disastrous.' 'That's going to be assumed as facts? That's how we're going to do this?' he said. 'That just flies in the face of everything that we stand for. Not just as judges, but as a people.' Connors was especially concerned about printing a legislative committee's recommendation directly on the ballot. 'To me, that is the aspect of this bill that makes it run completely afoul of our notion of our revered notions of separation of powers,' he said. Three academic professionals also spoke against the bill arguing Utah's judicial selection and retention process is already nationally renowned. They included Jordan Singer, a law professor at the New England School of Law in Boston, who said he's been studying judicial performance evaluation programs for nearly two decades, and he was part of the task force that helped set JPEC up back in 2007. 'I monitor every (judicial performance) program in the country,' Singer said. 'There is none finer than what the JPEC in Utah is doing right now.' He also warned lawmakers against what he predicted would be an unintended consequence of HB512: voter confusion and backlash. He said in the last 10 years, states have been moving away from telling voters how to vote in judicial retention elections. 'Making a direct statement to voters, especially on the ballot itself, will likely anger or frustrate citizens who don't like to be told how to vote,' he said. 'Injecting a joint legislative committee into the judicial evaluation process is likely to create confusion and suspicion, in the sense that voters will question both the work of the joint committee and the JPEC and will be perplexed if the JPEC's assessment does not match that of the joint committee.' Linda Smith, a Salt Lake City resident and a retired law professor, warned lawmakers against HB512's 'constitutional difficulties,' and urged them not to undermine JPEC's work. Amendment D ballot language was misleading to voters, Utah Supreme Court affirms 'They survey lawyers. They survey staff. They survey jurors. They have court observers who collect data, and then they collect data about the judges' processing of cases. All of that data is crunched by the JPEC committee,' Smith said. She said if that data needs to be more publicly available, 'that's the way to go,' not by establishing a legislative committee. 'I fear we will deter excellent people from remaining judges or applying to be judges if we continue down this politicized path,' she said. Susan Olson, political scientist who has also studied judicial retention and selection systems around the country, also warned HB512 would be unlike any judicial retention process other states have. 'The degree of potentially partisan intrusion into judicial independence that HB512 will make is unprecedented and a serious violation of the separation of powers,' Olson said. Lisonbee had the last word on Monday. She concluded her presentation by quoting from a Utah Supreme Court ruling — one that the state's highest court most recently issued to check the Legislature. In that case, the courts voided a ballot question for a 2024 proposed constitutional amendment, known as Amendment D, that would have weakened voters' ballot initiative power — but the language that appeared on the ballot (written by legislative leaders) characterized the amendment as one that would 'strengthen' and 'clarify' the ballot initiative process. 'In the words of the Utah Supreme Court,' Lisonbee said, 'voters need proper information with sufficient 'clarity' to enable them to 'express their will.'' All seven Republicans present in Monday's committee voted to endorse the bill. It now goes to the House chamber for further consideration. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
24-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Are Utahns informed enough when voting on their judges?
During Monday morning's House judiciary committee meeting, public comment leaned against HB512, a bill focused on Judicial retention modifications, sponsored by Majority Whip Rep. Karianne Lisonbee, R-Clearfield. Despite heavy public resistance, the bill passed the committee 7-2, receiving opposition from Salt Lake City Democratic Reps. Verona Mauga and Grant Miller. A retention election means a judge is up for a yes-no vote by the public to decide if they should hold his/her position in office for another term. 'Every election cycle, the No. 1 question I'm asked by friends, neighbors and constituents is, 'How should I vote on retaining judges?'' Lisonbee said Monday, emphasizing that voters generally vote 'all yes' or 'all no' due to insufficient information. The bill proposes significant changes to Utah's judicial retention process. It would add a legislative review component under a bipartisan committee and adjust how voters receive information about judges up for retention. 'It will increase information to voters by providing that any recommendation decision of the joint legislative committee on judicial performance be published in the voter information pamphlet and on the ballot for judges for judicial retention elections,' Lisonbee said. It would also provide 'sensitive records that relate to the character, professional competence, or physical and mental health of an individual that could interfere with or undermine the fairness of the proceedings.' 'The idea that the judiciary is fully independent from the legislature is simply false and is unconstitutionally false. It is structurally meant to be tied to the legislature,' she added. 'HB512 creates the joint legislative committee on judicial performance and describes an evaluation and recommendation process for that committee. This will increase transparency by providing public proceedings and inviting public participation.' Lisonbee clarified that the bill would be a tool for voters in addition to the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, or JPEC, which the Utah Legislature established in 2008 to help voters familiarize themselves with their judges. Though not a replacement, she argued that 'JPEC may do a great job, but the voters are not seeing it, and they are not feeling it. It is not something the voters are relying on.' The Utah State Courts website acknowledges that judges, as public servants, should give their allegiance solely to the U.S. Constitution: 'The obligation of a judge is to resolve disputes impartially and to base decisions solely upon the facts of the case and the law. A judge, therefore, should be insulated from public pressure.' During public comment, many argued that HB512 would interfere with a judge's ability to be impartial. Judges must be free to make decisions driven by the law and the facts and not based on who the litigants are and how they might react to those decisions,' Michael Drexel, assistant state court administrator at the Administrative Office of the Courts, said. 'They look in the eyes of mothers and fathers and separate them from their children for life. They look into the eyes of defendants and put them in prison. They see it firsthand, and they do care about doing their job well and with fidelity.' As a former district court judge from the 1st District in Logan, Kevin Allen said judges should always be held accountable for their decisions in the courtroom. He also stated that judges must rule according to the law and based on facts. However, Allen noted that constant scrutiny and unfounded criticism do have an impact, something he's experienced firsthand. 'Fifty percent of the litigants in front of you are not going to be happy, 50%, and they're going to have things to say about you. They're going to assume you made a ruling because of one way or another. ... Those aren't the facts. This feels like it's being set up to be judged on an opinion and that will affect judges.' A Gallup survey last December found that the majority of Americans have lost trust in the country's judiciary institution. 2024, a year filled with high-profile legal cases — from President Donald Trump's numerous indictments to Hunter Biden being found guilty on multiple felony charges — marked 'the first time on record that judicial confidence among those approving of U.S. leadership has ever dipped below 60%,' the report said, 'and the first time that confidence in the courts has been below 50% among both those who approve and those who disapprove of U.S. leadership, a double whammy pushing the national figure to its lowest in two decades.' Only 35% of those surveyed had confidence in the U.S. court system, a record low. Over the past four years, trust in the United States has declined sharply by 24 percentage points, distinguishing it from other wealthy nations where the majority of people still generally trust their systems. 'As a person who stands for election every two years, I understand the importance of communication with voters, the importance of transparency and the importance of accountability,' Lisonbee said in her closing remarks on Monday. 'I've worked collaboratively over many years with the judiciary, and I am grateful for the work of our good judges. Utahns invest heavily through the legislative branch in their courts and judges and deserve to have better information about their investment.'
