Gov. Mike Leavitt's two February appointments to the Utah Supreme Court broke a tradition of having at least one non-Mormon sit on the high court. The tradition dates from 1926 when judges elected by popular vote began to retire.
Now all five members of the state's highest court belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But Chief Justice Richard C. Howe doesn't think that's a problem.
"I don't see anything wrong with it," Howe told The Associated Press.
"Whether you belong to one church or another shouldn't make any difference on this court. What we want on this court are men and women of good character and legal ability, and their own private view on religion really doesn't enter into their decisions on this court. There may be an exception once in awhile, but it would be very subtle."
The latest appointments by Leavitt underscore the dominance of the LDS Church in Utah affairs.
"Anybody who lives here knows where all the power is," says Matt Gilmore, 90, a lawyer who for many years was general counsel to the Utah Tax Commission.
"You got a Supreme Court that's all Mormon, a Legislature that's practically all Mormon, an executive department headed up by a Mormon and a Republican Party that's all Mormon."
Now, from local to federal courts in Utah, members of one faith overwhelmingly rule the bench.
That may not be surprising for a state founded by a church theocracy and still 70 percent Mormon.
But a bitter Christopher Allen objects to it.
"I have zero confidence in them," says Allen, Utah director for the Society of Separationists, which lost the 1993 prayer case. "Utah is a solid theocracy, and the Supreme Court has proven to be spineless."
The separationists thought they had a case in Utah's constitution, which draws a deeper church-state divide than the federal constitution.
Unlike the federal charter, the state constitution spells out a ban on the use of government property for religious worship.
But the Supreme Court sanctioned opening prayers for city council meetings as long as anyone could offer a sincere prayer. In a sole dissent, former Justice I. Daniel Stewart, who is a Mormon, scolded his "flatly wrong" colleagues. "Having decided the word 'no' does not mean 'no,' the majority rewrites the constitution," Stewart wrote.
The majority decision ran for 78 pages, covering the sweep of Mormon history from religious persecution to dominance to polygamy battles and vitriolic newspaper rivalries. It concluded by rejecting a "rigid" constitutional interpretation that it said would be "hostile" to all religions.
"This is a state, after all, that was settled by people with primarily religious motivations," said the opinion written by Michael D. Zimmerman, who was the Supreme Court's only non-Mormon when he stepped down this year.
"He's in the same boat, serving the most powerful interest in the state — the Mormon Church," Allen asserts. "I think it was arranged that he would author the decision."
Zimmerman dismisses Allen's criticism as wildly conspiratorial.
"It's a sensitive topic because some people feel oppressed," says Zimmerman, 56, now a practicing lawyer who was replaced along with Stewart in February by state judges Michael J. Wilkins of the Court of Appeals and Matthew B. Durrant of 3rd District Court.
Then an Episcopalian and now a Zen Buddhist, Zimmerman says it was difficult for him to discern any bias among his Mormon peers.