Reclaiming legislative members it had lost in a yearlong constitutional battle, the Judicial Conduct Commission is set to resume its task of investigating and disciplining errant judges.
"We have been functioning without them (four legislators) but frankly, it has been difficult at times," said Steven H. Stewart, commission executive director.The Utah Supreme Court solved the problem Friday by reversing itself and allowing legislators to once again serve on the panel. Legislators and commission officials alike greeted the surprise decision with praise and relief.
"Although we've managed to keep up with the caseload, we're obviously very pleased to have the legislators back on the commission," Chairman Francis M. Wikstrom said.
"I'm totally surprised," said Rep. David Ure, R-Kamas, one of three legislators who were returned to the commission by Friday's ruling. "I didn't expect we would prevail to the extent we did."
Returning with Ure will be Rep. Gary F. Cox, D-Kearns, and Sen. Pete Suazo, D-Salt Lake. The fourth legislative member on the commission, former Sen. Nathan C. Tanner, was not re-elected. The Senate president must now appoint a replacement.
The significance legislators placed on the Supreme Court action was reflected in their decision to interrupt their regular activities Friday for a briefing by their attorney, M. Gay Taylor. According to some lawmakers, the ruling may have resolved an impending constitutional confrontation.
The possibility of such a clash became evident earlier this week, when House and Senate leaders quietly proposed rule changes to streamline impeachment procedures. Denied a voice on the Judicial Conduct Commission, they said they were prepared to take an even more direct role in the disciplining of judges.
House Rules Committee Chairwoman Susan Koehn, R-Woods Cross, explained the rule change was not aimed at any specific judge or judges but rather at the process. And it's possible the discussions of the rule changes will continue despite the Supreme Court ruling.
"The (judicial impeachment) procedure was so cumbersome, so difficult, that it could actually be the case that we could deal only with an impeachment hearing (in the House) and trial (in the Senate) before we could do any other business up here," she said. "We could waste the whole (45-day) session on one."
Also, Ure intends to proceed with a separate but related proposal to amend the state Constitution to give the Legislature more impeachment authority as well as ensure its role in the Judicial Conduct Commission.
In his lone dissenting opinion Friday, Justice I. Daniel Stewart suggested those kinds of not-so-thinly veiled threats may have influenced his colleagues.
"After 'Young' (the original court ruling) was handed down, various legislators threatened to initiate retaliatory action against the judiciary by asserting even greater legislative control over discipline and retention of judges," Stewart wrote. "Four members of the court now embrace the exact opposite position from that which they took in the initial Young opinion."
Stewart authored the original unanimous ruling that declared legislative membership on the commission a violation of the separation of powers clause in the state Constitution. The issue was raised by Salt Lake attorney Daniel L. Berman in his defense of 3rd District Judge David S. Young.
The commission recommended the judge be publicly reprimanded for allegedly leading an assistant attorney general into believing that Young was trying to extort a settlement of a high-profile case before him. In an October 1997 hearing before the Supreme Court, Berman argued, among other things, that the commission's composition constituted a legislative intrusion into the judicial branch of government.
On Friday, Berman said that, like Stewart, he continues to hold that view. He specifically disagreed with the majority's holding that the commission's activities are not a judicial function. Berman also shares Stewart's view regarding fears that that the initial ruling would have disbanded a host of other state commissions and task forces with legislative, judicial and executive branch members.
Stewart said a careful reading of the original court ruling would not support those assertions. Berman called it an "excessive case of Chicken Little-ism" because none of the interbranch boards performed the same kind of judicial functions as the Judicial Conduct Commission.
In any case, Stewart argued in his dissent, the only issue before the court was the composition of the Judicial Conduct Commission, and the only parties involved in the dispute were Young and the commission.
The legislative power to appoint four members of the commission may create the appearance of undue political influence in the exercise of judicial disciplinary authority, Stewart said.
"This potential alone may diminish independence of the judiciary in the eyes of a public that is expected to respect judicial opinions with which it may seriously disagree. Judicial integrity could be compromised if it becomes increasingly believed that judicial rulings are influenced by political forces," Stewart said.
In addition to resolving the constitutional conflict, the new ruling also reopens the Young case. The justices said they will schedule another hearing to reconsider the arguments for and against the proposed reprimand of the judge.
Deseret News political editor Bob Bernick contributed to this article.