The Utah State Bar has taken formal positions on several additional bills and resolutions introduced during the 2026 General Session that directly affect the judiciary, judicial procedures and access to justice. These positions were adopted following reviews and recommendations by the Bar’s Governmental Relations Committee (GRC) and subsequent votes on those recommendations by the Utah State Board of Bar Commissioners.
While the proposals vary in scope and subject matter, several raise continued concerns about legislative overreach into core judicial functions, the erosion of constitutionally established processes, and the potential for increased strategic manipulation of court proceedings. Others advance clarity, fairness and access within the justice system and have received Bar support.
“Lawyers have never been neutral observers of our democracy. Twenty-five of the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence were lawyers. Lawyers helped design a Constitution built on separation of powers and checks and balances to protect the public from one branch of government becoming too powerful,” said Bar Executive Director Elizabeth Wright. “That design was intentional, and it remains essential.”
Judicial Appointments and Constitutional Structure
The Bar opposes HB 424, Judicial Nomination Amendments, which would authorize the Governor to appoint judicial vacancies even when candidates have not been nominated by the Judicial Nominating Commission. The Commission is an independent body, established by the state constitution, responsible for screening applicants and recommending candidates for judicial vacancies in Utah’s appellate, district and juvenile courts. Using a merit selection process, the Commission ensures candidates are chosen based on qualifications rather than partisan politics.
The approach of HB 424 directly conflicts with Article VIII, Section 8 of the Utah Constitution and existing administrative rules governing the commission. While the bill is framed as contingent on a future constitutional amendment, its passage would effectively preempt constitutional safeguards currently in place to ensure merit-based judicial selection.
Similarly, the Bar reaffirms its opposition to HB 392 2nd Substitute, District Court Amendments, as well as related measures HJR 21 and SJR 5, which incorporate overlapping language and concepts. These proposals would allow parties to repeatedly disqualify or “strike” judges from specially created panels and replace them with judges drawn from other districts. This structure invites strategic filings designed to obtain more favorable outcomes rather than impartial adjudication and risks subjecting courts to excessive motions practice that undermines judicial efficiency and impartiality.
“Article VIII, Section 8 of the Utah Constitution safeguards the integrity and independence of our judiciary. By requiring appointments from a vetted list of nominees, imposing clear timelines on the executive and legislative branches, and prohibiting partisan political considerations in judicial selection,” said Bar President Kim Cordova. “It ensures that merit and fitness of character govern who serves on our courts. As licensees of the Bar, we have a professional responsibility to uphold this constitutional framework, protect the rule of law and preserve public confidence in a fair and impartial judicial system.”
The Bar has taken no position on HJR 15, which addresses sanctions and dismissals under Rules 11 and 41 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
Fairness, Uniformity and Access to Justice
The Bar supports HB 094, Criminal Accounts Receivable Amendments, which codifies existing practices to ensure consistent treatment of individuals across jurisdictions. By clarifying and standardizing procedures, the bill promotes fairness and transparency within the criminal justice system.
The Bar also supports SB 182, Attorney Admission to Jail Facilities Amendments, which enhances access to justice by ensuring attorneys can meet with incarcerated clients during regular hours and arrange for meetings outside of regular business hours when necessary. The bill appropriately requires sheriffs to provide safe and private meeting spaces, reinforcing the attorney-client relationship and protecting constitutional rights.
How the Bar Takes Positions on Legislation
“By Utah Supreme Court rule, the Bar has a constitutional responsibility to speak when proposals may adversely affect the judiciary or access to justice for Utahns,” Wright said. “The judiciary is part of a co-equal branch of government. Every lawyer takes an oath to uphold and defend that constitutional structure, and we take that oath seriously. Protecting a fair and impartial justice system and maintaining the balance among the branches of government are core to our duty to the public and the rule of law.”
During the legislative session, the Bar reviews bills that may affect the courts, judicial administration, legal procedures, the practice of law, or access to the legal system. Volunteer attorneys with subject-matter expertise assist in reviewing legislation, but official positions are taken only after consideration by the GRC and a vote of the Bar Commission.
By law and court rule, the Bar may take positions only on matters related to the judiciary and the administration of justice. The Bar does not engage in political advocacy outside these areas. Legislative positions are publicly posted on the Bar’s website. For a complete list of bills the Bar has reviewed and No Positions, click here, and then click 2026 to view the PDF.
