3 controversial bills to change the judiciary have been stopped — others are still proceeding

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) — The Utah legislature and the judiciary have come to an agreement about several controversial bills, including several that were the subject of protests from legal professionals in the state.

Bills that proposed changes to judicial retention and judicial elections will no longer be considered. Senate President J. Stuart Adams and Speaker Mike Schultz released a statement on Monday afternoon about the decision.

“Through deliberate debate, thoughtful conversations and in a spirit of collaboration, the Legislature and the Judiciary have found a path forward that will make our government stronger and our state better,” the statement reads.

Which bills are not proceeding?

The following bills will no longer proceed:

• H.B. 512, “Judicial Retention Changes”
• H.B. 451, “Judicial Election Amendments”
• Unnumbered “Judicial Officer Modifications”

H.B. 512 would have set up the “Joint Legislative Committee on Judicial Performance.” The bill would have directed the Lt. Governor’s office to put “any retention recommendation from the (committee) for a judge or justice who is listed on the ballot.”

H.B. 451 would have raised the threshold for a judge to be retained. According to the language in the bill, it proposed requiring judges to receive at least 67% of the vote to retain their office.

“Judicial Officer Modifications” would have increased the number of justices.

Which bills are continuing through the legislature?

The following bills/resolutions will still be considered:

• S.B. 203, “Judicial Standing Amendments”
• S.B. 204, “Right to Appeal Amendments”
• S.J.R. 9, “Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Civil Procedure on Injunctions”

S.B. 203 looks to limit who has third-party standing (people different from the plaintiff) and add requirements for when an association can bring a case on behalf of its members. Critics argue this would make it harder for “everyday Utahns” to challenge laws.

S.B. 204 would allow defendants to appeal an injunction when a trial court rules that a law must be paused or not enacted because it’s potentially unconstitutional. Sen. Brady Brammer (R – Pleasant Grove) has previously told ABC4.com this proposal aims to address the “overuse” of injunctions in lower courts, particularly on laws passed by the legislature and signed by the governor.

S.J.R. 009 would put a 28-day stipulation on parties challenging potentially unconstitutional laws and seeking an injunction. They would need to do so within 28 days from the time the legislature adjourns.

More information

The Judicial Council (the governing body for the Utah Judiciary) said it will remain neutral on S.B. 296, which would allow vacancies in the high court and court of appeals to be filled by appointment of the Governor and confirmation by the Senate.

“The Utah Constitution wisely created three independent branches of government,” Chief Justice Durrant, presiding officer of the Judicial Council, said in a statement. “At times, there is tension, but that will not prevent the Judiciary and the Legislature from working together to serve the people of Utah.”

Lindsay Aerts contributed to this report.