The Utah State Bar held a press conference on Tuesday at the Utah State Capitol to address a growing number of legislative proposals that would alter how judges are nominated, retained, and insulated from political pressure. The Bar emphasized its willingness to collaborate, advocated for careful study of adding court structures, and responsible use of taxpayer money, particularly in Utah’s strained lower courts, where the majority of Utahns interact with the justice system.
During the press conference, Bar Executive Director Elizabeth Wright and Bar President Kim Cordova explained that the judiciary is an essential branch of government, and must be grounded in constitutional process, evidence-based decision-making, and respect for long-standing safeguards that protect the public’s right to fair and impartial courts. They both underscored that accountability is strongest when all stakeholders are brought to the table, including judges, attorneys, court administrators, lawmakers, and the public.
They explained processes in a system that the Legislature itself created and has repeatedly reaffirmed, which is recognized as a model for the nation. Every Utah judge is nominated through a nonpartisan commission where the process is merit based, then appointed by the Governor, confirmed by the Utah Senate, and subject to voter retention elections. This structure was deliberately designed to balance accountability with independence, ensuring judges can apply the law without fear of political retaliation or pressure tied to unpopular outcomes.
Emphasis was added that judges are accountable through multiple mechanisms, including public retention elections, appellate review, and ethical oversight.
“What accountability does not mean is punishing judges or restructuring the courts because specific rulings are politically unpopular,” said Cordova.
She agreed with the Legislature’s surmise that population growth is a contributing factor to the need for court expansion, but not at the Supreme Court level. She reiterated that the increase in population is felt most acutely in district, justice and juvenile courts. These lower courts handle the overwhelming majority of cases statewide, yet they continue to operate under severe workload pressures. She highlighted that funding decisions should prioritize relieving these pressures to ensure timely access to justice for Utahns.
Cordova shared her experience as a criminal defense attorney, describing days spent waiting hours for cases to be called in overcrowded courtrooms. She noted that when dockets are overloaded, and staffing is insufficient, cases are delayed, families are disrupted, and individuals in custody often remain incarcerated longer than necessary — not because their cases lack merit, but because the system lacks capacity. These delays carry real human and financial costs for taxpayers and communities alike, she said.
Both Bar leaders expressed concern that proposed constitutional amendments affecting judicial nominations and retention would concentrate appointment and removal authority within the political branches, weakening essential checks and balances. Allowing one branch of government to bypass merit-based commissions or trigger special retention mechanisms undermines separation of powers and exposes judges to political retaliation rather than evaluation based on performance and integrity.
Wright also stressed that courts are constitutionally obligated to review whether laws comply with the Utah Constitution. That responsibility is not optional, nor is it a political act. When judges face pressure for fulfilling that duty, it is the public that bears the cost. A justice system cannot function as a meaningful check on government power if judges must weigh legal reasoning against political consequences.
Wright also clarified that the Bar is not a political organization or special-interest group and does not advocate for ideology or outcomes. Its involvement in legislative matters is limited by law and court rule to issues that directly affect the regulation of the practice of law and the functioning and independence of the courts.
“When proposals affect how judges are selected, retained, or pressured while on the bench, the Bar has a responsibility to speak on behalf of the justice system and the Utahns it serves,” Wright said.
She expounded further by saying an independent judiciary does not exist to benefit judges. It exists to protect the public by ensuring laws are applied fairly, constitutional rights are upheld, and disputes are resolved based on facts and law. Accountability strengthens institutions when it respects process and constitutional roles; it undermines them when it is used to control or punish.
Cordova added, “Accountability is not about controlling judges. It’s about controlling ourselves and disagreeing better when the Constitution does its job.”
