SALT LAKE CITY — More than 900 lawyers from across the state have signed on to a letter to the Utah State Legislature, urging elected lawmakers to back off of bills they say threaten the independence of the judiciary.
"These bills are a coordinated effort to weaken the judiciary and remove critical checks on government power," said Kristy Kimball, an attorney who signed on to the letter. "That should concern every Utahn."
Kimball and dozens of other lawyers held a news conference on the steps of the Utah State Capitol on Wednesday, where they criticized a series of bills that they warned would politicize the judicial branch of government.
"An independent judiciary is not just an issue for lawyers. It impacts every single person in this state," she told reporters. "If these bills pass, your right to a fair trial, your ability to challenge unjust laws and your confidence that judges will rule based on the law and not political pressure will be at risk."
The bills include:
- House Bill 512, which allows for a legislative committee to weigh in on the ballot on judges up for retention election.
- Senate Bill 203, which changes who can file a lawsuit on behalf of an association or group of people challenging laws the legislature passes.
- Senate Bill 296, which has the Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate (with a re-confirmation hearing every four years).
- House Bill 451, which raises the threshold of votes a judge needs to get in a retention election in order to remain on the bench.
- Senate Bill 154 and Senate Joint Resolution 4 which grants the Legislative Auditor-General power to look into records deemed "privileged."
But lawmakers running these bills defend them as needed for transparency and accountability. Recently, lawmakers have criticized the speed at which the Utah Supreme Court works to issue rulings. They have also said that voters should have more information about the judges who appear on their ballot.
In light of federal cuts, Utah legislature's national parks resolution gets renewed interest:
"I think it’s very transparent to have our citizens weigh in on that process," said Senate Majority Whip Chris Wilson, R-Logan, who is sponsoring the bill on the Utah Supreme Court's Chief Justice.
Sen. Wilson argued that people should be able to weigh in on these things. Critics of the bill say it could subject judges to harassment, particularly from people who receive an adverse ruling.
"It’s unprecedented and it’s frankly outrageous," said Chris Peterson, a University of Utah law professor and former Democratic candidate for Utah governor.
Two members of the Utah Supreme Court have expressed concern about the bills.
"The natural inclination is to take these one by one, but it is a broad attack," said Chief Justice Matthew Durrant at a meeting earlier this week of the Utah Judicial Council. "I view it as a broad attack on the independence of the judiciary."
Justice Paige Petersen noted the bills were based on "two decisions they didn't like last summer."
But some bills are being modified as groups like the Utah State Bar, which certifies lawyers, push lawmakers to consider changes. On Wednesday, Sen. Brady Brammer, R-Highland, did modify his bill on who had the legal standing to bring litigation over a law the legislature passes.
"If you are an association who is bringing a claim, when you plead that claim you need to have somebody in your association that would have standing and can bring it on their behalf," he told the House Judiciary Committee. "That is the main point of the bill."
The amendment made by Sen. Brammer was welcome news to Herbert Ley, who showed up to oppose the bill on behalf of the Utah Stream Access Coalition, which advocates on behalf of boaters, anglers and others for waterways.
"We have thousands of members and we file legal actions on their behalf," Ley told FOX 13 News.
Sen. Brammer's modification to the bill, allowing some individuals within a group to have legal standing, prompted Ley to no longer oppose the bill.
"We were left wondering what were the implications of this bill as it was written because it was so unclear," he said, later adding: "Clarity in the law is a good thing. Especially if that clarity aligns with our ability to file a legal action on behalf of our members."
