Bill looks to require judges get 67% approval for retention

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) — A new bill unveiled at the Utah legislature would require higher thresholds for Utah’s judges and state Supreme Court justices to keep their jobs.

Currently, under Utah law, judges only need to earn “more yes votes than no votes,” or a simple majority, to win a retention election.

The proposal from Rep. Jason Kyle (R-Huntsville) in H.B. 451, as written would require 67 percent approval.

Senate leaders expressed some doubt about the proposal Monday, but say they have not talked to Rep. Kyle about his effort.

“I’m not sure that passes constitutional muster based on retention elections,” said Sen. Kirk Cullimore (R-Draper), a lawyer and Senate Majority Leader.

Cullimore said that he thinks other states do have higher thresholds, around 60 percent for retention elections.

“I guess it’s not totally off the wall, I just haven’t heard about it or thought about it in the context of Utah law or the Utah Constitution,” said Cullimore.

The proposal comes amid tensions between Utah’s legislative and judicial branches, and it’s not the only change lawmakers are looking to make to the judiciary.

Over the summer, Utah’s Supreme Court issued a significant ruling that the legislature may have overstepped when they gutted a citizen-led initiative to create an independent redistricting commission to draw new Congressional boundaries. The move, the state’s high court ruled, may have violated Utahn’s right to “alter and reform” their government but the case is still waiting for a lower court’s ruling.

Top House and Senate leaders called it one of the worst rulings they’d ever seen and promised judicial reforms in the wake of the decision.

In addition, Utah’s Supreme Court also ruled that proposals to change Utah’s constitution via Amendments A and D were voided from the 2024 November ballot because the legislature failed to meet a constitutionally required publication requirement, another decision that angered legislative leaders.

And it appears certain lawmakers aren’t happy with the lower courts either. This legislative session, there’s a proposal limiting when courts can issue injunctions. Injunctions use a narrow set of criteria to determine if a law can be put a law on hold while its constitutionality is sorted out. The proposal, S.B. 204, which is waiting for a House vote, would prevent those injunctions from being implemented as soon as an appeal to a lower court’s ruling on a case is filed with the Utah Supreme Court.

Sen. Brady Brammer (R-Pleasant Grove) has told ABC4 that this proposal aims to address lower court “overuse” of injunctions on laws passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, while also arguing that it has “long been the policy to presume laws are constitutional with doubts resolved in favor of constitutionality.”

Brammer is the sponsor of another judicial change that could have major impacts, S.B. 203 looks to limit who has third-party standing and add requirements for when an association can bring a case on behalf of its members, something critics say would prevent groups from proving they’ve been harmed unless the harm had already occurred.

The Utah State Bar opposed an original version of the bill but was neutral on a substitute.

Brammer argues this bill protects the integrity of the courts from out-of-state interests that don’t meet traditional standing requirements.

That bill is also waiting for a House vote.