Utah’s judiciary has long stood as a model of independence and fairness, free from political machinations that would undermine its integrity. However, recent legislative actions signal a troubling shift in the balance of power, threatening the impartiality of the courts and the rights of Utah’s citizens.
These developments are part of a broader, nationwide trend where state legislatures seek to consolidate power, often at the expense of judicial independence. In 2023 alone, legislators in 29 states introduced over 120 bills targeting the autonomy of their judicial branches, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Utah is no exception.
Looking ahead to the 2025 legislative session, Utahns must remain vigilant. Speculation abounds about potential legislative retaliation against the judiciary for a few court decisions, including changes to judicial selection processes, the introduction of judicial term limits or even impeachment attempts targeting judges perceived as obstacles to legislative agendas. These possibilities underscore the Legislature’s growing appetite for unchecked authority.
The 2023 General Session saw significant changes to Utah’s judicial nominating commissions via Senate Bill 129. Previously heralded as a model system, the nominating process was stripped of bipartisan representation and the guaranteed involvement of judicial and legal representatives. This marked a clear departure from a system designed to minimize political influence in judicial appointments. By removing these safeguards, the Legislature has opened the door to politicized appointments that could compromise the judiciary’s objectivity.
Another legislative intrusion came with HJR2, which restricted the criteria for courts to issue preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders. The timing was conspicuous — coming on the heels of a court injunction on Utah’s abortion trigger law — raising concerns about legislators using their authority to curtail judicial checks on controversial laws.
In a further blow to judicial impartiality, HJR8, passed in 2024, introduced a “judge shopping” mechanism. Litigants in larger counties can now disqualify a judge without stating a cause, undermining the principle that judges should preside over cases impartially unless genuine conflicts of interest arise. This change not only erodes trust in the judiciary but also places undue strain on the judicial system by incentivizing litigants to try to obtain judges perceived as more favorable to their cases.
These legislative actions are not isolated incidents. The reduction of the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Commission’s membership in 2024, under Senate Bill 200, notably excluded critical voices, including the Utah Supreme Court chief justice and mental health and civil rights representatives. This restructuring skewed the commission’s composition toward law enforcement and state agencies, potentially sidelining diverse perspectives crucial for balanced criminal justice reform.
Similarly, the elimination of the Judicial Rules Review Committee in favor of a combined Rules Review and General Oversight Committee expanded legislative oversight into court rules. While this may seem procedural, it signals an increased willingness by the Legislature to exert influence over judicial operations, chipping away at the judiciary’s independence.
The Legislature’s reaction to the Utah Supreme Court’s 2024 decision on Amendment D highlights another dimension of its overreach. When citizens approved an independent redistricting commission to reduce partisan gerrymandering via a 2018 ballot initiative, the Legislature responded by effectively dismantling it. The Utah Supreme Court later ruled that such actions overstepped legislative authority, emphasizing the constitutional right of citizens to reform their government through initiatives. Instead of respecting the court’s decision, legislative leaders pursued a constitutional amendment to overturn the ruling, even attempting to manipulate ballot language to sway public opinion.
Such moves undermine the judiciary and attack the democratic process, diminishing the power of Utah’s citizens to enact meaningful reforms.
Utahns must resist this erosion of judicial independence by actively engaging in the democratic process. This means holding legislators accountable, demanding transparency and opposing measures that further consolidate power in the legislative branch. Citizen advocacy, bolstered by media scrutiny and public dialogue, can serve as a critical counterweight to the Legislature’s overreach.
Utah’s judiciary should not be a political pawn but an impartial arbiter of justice, safeguarding the rights of all citizens. Preserving its independence requires constant vigilance and an unwavering commitment to the principles of democracy. Now, more than ever, Utahns must stand up to ensure that the scales of justice remain balanced and that no branch of government wields unchecked power.