Latest news with #SJR9
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Legal professionals protest against bills that seek to reshape Utah's judicial branch
SALT LAKE CITY () — Several bills proposed in the 2025 legislative session are looking to reshape Utah's judicial branch — but hundreds of attorneys, judges, and legal professionals gathered on Wednesday to say that would be attacking the separation of powers. More than 900 attorneys across the Beehive State signed a letter urging lawmakers to reject a handful of different efforts to reform the judiciary. LEARN MORE: 7 key ways the Utah legislature could change the judiciary 'S.B. 203 and SJR 9 will make it harder for Utahns to challenge unconstitutional laws, stripping away one of the few tools that everyday people in Utah have to hold their government accountable,' one protester said. 'We have a good judiciary,' Rep. Grant Amjad Miller (D – Salt Lake City) said. 'We shouldn't change it. We should keep it.' The bills they were opposing range from the makeup of the state's Supreme Court to setting up a process for lawmakers to make retention recommendations for judges on the ballot. 'The legislature has an important role to serve — that role is in making laws, not in telling each of us how to vote in judicial retention elections,' University of Utah law professor Christopher Peterson said. State Sen. Daniel Thatcher (R) said he has never seen the judicial branch weigh in on legislation. Senate leaders say it is within their constitutional right to change the judiciary, arguing that changes are about the best policy — and an effort to speed up the judicial process. Legal professionals who signed the letter and protested at the State Capitol voiced their disapproval of the following bills and resolutions: , 'Boards and Commissions Revisions,' and , 'Judicial retention changes.' , 'Judicial Election Amendments.' , 'Judicial Standing Amendments.' , 'Legislative Audit Amendments,' and , 'Joint Resolution Amending Court Rules of Procedure and Evidence.' , 'Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Civil Procedure on Injunctions' , 'Judicial Amendments.' , 'Right to Appeal Amendments.' has previously discussed some , including changes that could come from HB 512, HB 451, SB 203, SJR 009, SB 296, and SB 204. A more is also available on Protesters on Wednesday called to 'keep politics out of the courtroom.' HB 412 would amend several sections of the Utah Code and change requirements for limiting members of a political party to be on 'certain boards, commissions, committees, and councils.' The language of the bill suggests removing constraints to control how many members of a political party may be on a commission. HB 512 sets up the 'Joint Legislative Committee on Judicial Performance,' outlines its makeup, and directs the Lt. Governor's office to put 'any retention recommendation from the (committee) for a judge or justice who is listed on the ballot.' HB 451 would raise the threshold for a judge to be retained. According to the language in the bill, it proposes requiring judges to receive at least 67% of the vote to retain their office. However, opponents argue that the bill would create 'extra barriers' to prevent some judges from keeping their positions. SB 203 looks to (people different from the plaintiff) and add requirements for when an association can bring a case on behalf of its members. Critics argue this would make it harder for 'everyday Utahns' to challenge laws. SB 154 seeks to make changes related to the disclosure of confidential information. The bill proposes, in part, that the disclosure of confidential information would be authorized if requested by the legislative auditor. Refusal to disclose a 'privileged item' would require a written statement explaining why that information was withheld. The passage of SB 154 is attached to the passage of SJR 004 — if SJR 004 does not pass, SB 154 would not be enacted. SJR 004 seeks to make amends to several rules of civil procedure, including (but not limited to) attorney-client privilege and waiving that privilege in relation to a legislative audit. SJR 009 would put a 28-day stipulation on parties challenging potentially unconstitutional laws and seeking an injunction. They would need to do so within 28 days from the time the legislature adjourns. 'By limiting this timeframe, it makes it harder for citizens to fight back against unfair laws,' opponents argue. SB 296 would allow vacancies in the high court and court of appeals to be filled by appointment of the Governor and confirmation by the Senate — a process used now to confirm each of Utah's judges. Opponents argue the bill 'allows politics to dictate court leadership.' SB 204 would allow defendants to appeal an injunction when a trial court rules that a law must be paused or not enacted because it's potentially unconstitutional. Sen. Brady Brammer (R – Pleasant Grove) has previously told this proposal aims to address the 'overuse' of injunctions in lower courts, particularly on laws passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. Derick Fox contributed to this report. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
21-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion: Utah Legislature's attack on judiciary is part of a dangerous trend to violate checks and balances
Utah's judicial system is under attack. A series of bills seeks to expand the power of government, weaken the ability of everyday Utahns to challenge government overreach and stretch thin our state's legal norms. In proposing these bills, some members of the Utah Legislature appear all too ready to participate in the newest political trend — caring little for future ramifications and delighting in chipping away at the checks and balances of the judicial branch. No matter how trendy, these efforts must be opposed. SB203 significantly limits how groups can challenge harmful laws passed by the legislative branch. SJR9 needlessly narrows the window for plaintiffs to file suit to challenge an unconstitutional law, while SB204 creates special rules that make it easier for the Legislature to appeal a ruling against them. HB412 would eliminate a requirement that boards and commissions with oversight of the judiciary be bipartisan. HB512 and HB451 would increase opportunities for politicians to add their own nominees to the judiciary and make retention of qualified judges on the bench more difficult for voters, unnecessarily introducing party politics into and elevating the voices of partisan lawmakers in the judicial retention process. SB296 would inexplicably insert both the executive and legislative branches into the affairs of the Utah Supreme Court, encouraging more, rather than less, political interference into a branch of government that should be independent. So many bills with a direct impact on the judiciary and its role in limiting legislative power have been proposed this session, it is difficult to view it as a coincidence. Coordinated effort or not, the result is a slicing away of one check or balance after another that, when taken together, will blunt the protections of Utah's constitution. Several of the preceding bills are on such shaky constitutional ground that they will almost certainly face lengthy legal challenges. These legal battles will cost taxpayers money unnecessarily, and, even if the laws survive challenge, none of these bills will have an upside for anyone living in the Beehive State beyond elected officials looking to expand their influence on judges, avoid accountability or skirt our state's constitution. Alarmingly, these bills are not locally driven responses to isolated policies in need of fixing. Instead, they appear to be targeted retaliation against previous efforts by Utahns to assert their constitutional rights and oppose government overreach. After Utah courts acted to protect the people's rights, the Legislature has responded by attempting to insulate themselves from anyone who would check their power. And the backlash is not subtle. These bills, taken together, would result in weakening the judiciary's ability to check the executive and legislative power balance, opening the door for lawmakers to more easily pass unconstitutional and unpopular laws with no consequences. The Utah State Bar has rightly come out in opposition to the majority of these proposed bills, and lawyers and non-lawyers in the state should share its concern. More critically, members of the Utah Legislature should remember that the job they have been elected to do is to preserve the power of the people, not increase their own. We must resist this political trend of expanding one branch of government at the expense of the judicial branch within the borders of our own state or it will become the norm. The norm will numb us, resulting in a system and set of laws biased toward a select few. Judicial norms and constitutional processes have never been flashy or trendy — but that is exactly why they must be preserved; these norms and processes will preserve us and our state. This latest power grab by the Legislature needs checking now and consistently until this trend reverses and the critical checks and balances of our state government are respected once again.
