Utah Supreme Court Justice Matthew Durrant speaks to a joint session of the House and Senate at the Capitol in Salt Lake City on the first day of the legislative session, Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)
A deal has been struck to solve one of the most contentious issues of the Utah Legislature’s 2025 session.
After weeks of outcry from Utah’s legal community that Utah lawmakers were going too far by exerting their influence over the state’s judicial branch of government, the state’s top legislative leaders on Monday announced a compromise.
Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, and House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, issued a prepared statement Monday saying an “agreement” had been reached with the judiciary on a suite of bills that the Utah State Bar and other legal professionals rallied against last week, describing it as legislative overreach.
The top Republican leaders said three controversial proposals “will not proceed through the legislative process at this time.” They include:
- HB512, which would give legislators a say in judicial retention elections.
- HB451, which would require a justice or judge to receive at least 67% of the vote to be retained.
- An unnumbered but not yet publicly drafted bill by House Majority Leader Jefferson Moss, R-Saratoga Springs, that would increase the number of justices on the Utah Supreme Court.
However, Adams and Schultz said four other bills — including SB296, which would give the governor and the Senate control over picking the Utah Supreme Court’s next chief justice, and three others sponsored by Sen. Brady Brammer, R-Highland (SB203, SB204, and SJR9) — “will continue to be considered and debated by the Legislature, with a position of neutrality from the Judicial Council.”
“Our system of government was designed to ensure that each branch operates independently, yet also relies on one another to function effectively,” Adams and Schultz said. “At times, this dynamic creates natural and necessary friction between branches. However, we firmly believe that healthy debate and reform do not undermine democracy — they strengthen it.”
Adams and Schultz said their aim is to “preserve this legacy of excellence while improving transparency, efficiency and integrity within our courts.”
Utah Senate passes bill to give governor, Senate control over picking Supreme Court chief justice
“The proposed changes are procedural updates, not an attack on the Judiciary,” the two legislative leaders added. “The Utah Constitution entrusts the Legislature with a broad range of responsibilities in shaping the justice system — including creating courts, determining the number of justices, setting forth how a chief justice is chosen, setting up the nominating commissions for judges, confirming judges and setting retention elections, among others. These actions are not overreach; they are the Legislature fulfilling its constitutional duties.”
The deal comes after Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Matthew Durrant came to the Utah Capitol last week to meet personally with Adams and Schultz. He hand-delivered a letter that outlined Durrant’s concerns with legislative efforts that could potentially undermine the “independence and integrity” of the judiciary, but he only specifically called out one bill: HB512, sponsored by House Majority Whip Karianne Lisonbee, R-Clearfield.
The previous day, more than 900 Utah attorneys signed on to a letter calling on the Utah Legislature to reject all of the bills.
Durrant’s letter did not specifically mention SB296, sponsored by Senate Majority Whip Chris Wilson, R-Logan, but in a Judicial Council meeting on Monday last week, both he and Justice Paige Petersen expressed concerns. That day, Justice Paige Petersen urged “kill this silly bill.”
Utah chief justice delivers letter to lawmakers to oppose bill threatening judicial independence
“There’s absolutely no reason for (the governor and the Senate) to be meddling in how we pick the chief justice,” she said, urging her colleagues to take a public position to oppose the bill.
Michael Drechsel, assistant state court administrator at the Administrative Office of the Courts, told a Senate committee last week the judiciary opposed Wilson’s bill, expressing concern that it would be an “unwise use” of legislative authority.
However, on Monday, Drechsel did not comment on SB296 in a House committee hearing, but Ron Gordon, the state court administrator, issued a news release later in the afternoon confirming the Judicial Council “will take a neutral position” on SB296.
In order to address concerns with the other bill, Lisonbee’s HB512, “the Judicial Council and the Legislature have engaged in discussions over the last several days and have found a mutually agreeable path forward,” the news release stated.
“The Utah Constitution wisely created three independent branches of government,” Durrant said in a prepared statement included in that release. “At times, there is tension, but that will not prevent the Judiciary and the Legislature from working together to serve the people of Utah.”
The news release added that the judiciary “remains committed to working with the Legislature” to address several issues that lawmakers have grappled with during the 2025 session, including “judicial performance standards and judicial retention in a way that provides information necessary for voters to make informed decisions; and the Judiciary’s ability to operate as an independent branch of government.”
Despite experts’ warnings, bill to give Utah lawmakers a say in judge elections advances
The Utah State Bar — which previously opposed HB512 and SB296, along with previous versions of Brammer’s bills — also issued a statement applauding the deal between legislative leaders and the judiciary after what it described as a “tumultuous legislative session.”
“The Bar is supportive of the Court’s agreement,” the Bar said, also expressing “relief” and gratitude that lawmakers withdrew from HB512, Lisonbee’s bill to create a legislative committee that would allow legislators to offer recommendations directly on the ballot as to whether voters should retain or not retain judges.
“The withdrawal of HB512 preserves the independence of the judiciary and maintains the Constitution’s separation of powers between our co-equal branches of government,” the Bar said.
While it previously opposed SB296, given the Judicial Council’s shift of position, the Bar said it “will also take a neutral position on this bill.”
‘A broad attack’: Utah’s judiciary fights bills threatening its independence
“The Bar wishes to thank the lawyers and law firms who put in so much time and effort to speak with legislators, write letters, hold press conferences, and conduct legislative meetings to express support for an independent judiciary,” the Bar said, also thanking its commissioners and governmental relations committee for their work — as well as specifically applauding Durrant, Dreschel and other court leadership.
“Legislators listened, and combined efforts made a difference,” the Bar said.
Specifically, the Bar also thanked Brammer, Rep. Jordan Teuscher, Lisonbee, legislative leadership, and other “lawyer legislators who worked behind the scenes to find resolution.”
“The Bar is looking forward to facilitating any committees or work groups that are created to reach the goal that allows the branches to promote judicial access and assist the Courts in being able to be efficient and productive,” the Bar added.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.