The Utah State Bar is deeply alarmed by the fast-moving package of bills before the Utah Legislature that would fundamentally remake the state’s judicial system. Proposed legislation has been coordinated to work in conjunction with each other to make it easier for lawmakers and the executive branch to remove judges, and just as quickly replace them, based on subjective political judgments rather than legal skill, experience, and demonstrated ability to be fair and impartial.
While each proposal is presented as a narrow change, together these bills operate as an overhaul to how judges are appointed, retained, and pressured while on the bench. The combined effect weakens long-standing safeguards that protect judges from political retribution and undermines the public’s right to a judiciary that upholds the rule of law without favor.
Several of the bills expand legislative and executive control over judicial appointments, allowing elected officials to bypass traditional merit-based processes through the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission (JPEC) and install judges who may later rule on cases involving those same officials. Others create new mechanisms for lawmakers to subject sitting judges to heightened scrutiny or special retention processes outside the normal, voter-driven system. Additional proposals would allow judges to be removed or replaced more quickly, lowering the threshold for political intervention in judicial service. That reality places judges in an untenable position: rule against the government and risk retaliation, or rule cautiously to avoid becoming a political target.
Taken together, these changes make it easier for the Legislature to target judges whose rulings are not liked or unpopular and replace them with judges selected under newly expedited or politicized procedures. House Bill 262 has been resurrected from last year and has several ramifications, including outside interests campaigning to impact judicial retention elections. This bill requires 67% of votes cast be “yes” votes, which would stand to be the highest approval rate in the nation without just cause.
This is not a hypothetical concern. A fair court system requires judges to decide on cases based on the law and the Constitution, not on fear of political retaliation. When lawmakers gain the power to subjectively determine whether judges may continue to serve, courts can no longer serve as a meaningful check on government power.
Equally troubling is how quickly these bills are advancing. The proposals are moving through the legislative process at an accelerated pace, limiting meaningful public review and discussion of sweeping changes that affect every Utahn who will have to pay for the judicial restructuring and who may one day rely on the courts for protection of their rights.
An independent judiciary does not mean that the courts can do whatever they want to benefit judges. It does mean there is structural protection for the public with Utah’s courts ensuring laws are applied fairly, constitutional rights are protected, and disputes are resolved based on facts and law, not political targeting and pressure.
This package of legislation risks replacing that system with one in which judicial decisions are shaped by fear of legislative probing and political consequences. Utahns deserve the opportunity to fully understand and weigh in on changes that strike at the core of a fair and impartial justice system. Utahns deserve better!
The Bar has officially taken positions on the following bills:
| Bill | Position |
| HB 260 – Unauthorized Practice of Law Amendments | SUPPORT |
| HB 262 – Judicial Election Amendments | OPPOSE |
| HB 274 – Sentencing Commission Amendments | OPPOSE |
| HB 366 – Judicial Cases Distribution Amendments | OPPOSE |
| HB 392 – Constitutional Court Amendments | OPPOSE |
| HJR 005 – Proposal to Amend Utah Constitution – Judicial Nominations | OPPOSE |
| HJR 013 – Proposal to Amend Utah Constitution – Judicial Retention | OPPOSE |
| SB 134 – Appellate Court Amendments | OPPOSE the addition of two Supreme Court Justices: SUPPORT the addition of appellate and district court judges |
For bill summaries, sponsors, and the basis for the Bar’s support or opposition, click here.
How the Bar Takes Positions on Legislation
During the legislative session, the Bar reviews bills that may affect the courts, the legal profession, or access to justice. Volunteer attorneys with relevant experience help identify and review bills, but they do not take official positions. The Bar’s Government Relations Committee meets weekly to evaluate legislation and, when appropriate, makes recommendations to the Bar Commission, which decides whether the Bar will take a position.
By law and court rule, the Bar may only take positions on issues related to the courts and judiciary, legal procedures, the administration of justice, the practice of law, and access to the legal system. The Bar does not engage in political advocacy outside these areas. All Bar legislative positions are posted publicly.
