Latest news with #UtahStateBar
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Utah attorneys sanctioned by appeals court for using AI to write legal brief
Two Utah attorneys were sanctioned after the Utah Court of Appeals found that they violated procedural rules for lawyers by citing cases that did not exist and appeared to have been created through artificial intelligence. The court's opinion says this is the first time Utah courts have addressed using AI when preparing legal documents. The judges said in the document that the use of reliable AI tools is not improper in itself, but the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure require attorneys to ensure their filings are accurate. 'The legal profession must be cautious of AI due to its tendency to hallucinate information. While technology continues to evolve, attorneys must verify each source,' the appellate judges said. Here, it said the attorneys 'fell short of their gatekeeping responsibilities as members of the Utah State Bar' when citing fake cases generated by ChatGPT. Richard Bednar and Douglas Durban, representing Matthew Garner, filed a petition asking the appellate court to review a decision of the 3rd District Court. When the attorneys on the other side of the dispute responded, they found the petition cited multiple cases that either didn't exist or were not applicable. In response, those attorneys stated that it appeared the petition could be AI-generated and cited at least one case they could only find by searching ChatGPT. They also stated that the petition contained references that were 'wholly unrelated' to the case. Bednar, who filed and signed the petition, was ordered not only to pay the opposing party's attorneys' fees for the time spent responding to a petition that included AI, but to refund his own client any fees associated with his filing of the petition. He was also ordered to pay $1,000 to "and Justice for all" a Utah nonprofit that works to provide equal access to justice and courts for Utahns. The Court of Appeals stated that it reviewed sanctions in other legal jurisdictions for attorneys citing 'hallucinated authority,' and believes the sanctions are appropriate. A hearing was scheduled for April 22 to give the attorneys the chance to argue why they should not be sanctioned. In a request to amend their petition filed before the hearing, Bednar and Durbano apologized for the errors and offered to pay the other party's attorneys' fees associated with their response. At the hearing, an attorney representing Bednar and Durbano explained that it was a law clerk who used ChatGPT to create the document, not Bednar; however, Bednar mistakenly trusted that someone else had checked the citations. The attorney said Bednar does take responsibility, although he was unaware that ChatGPT was being used until after the opposing attorneys brought it to his attention. He said his clients would voluntarily pay the opposing attorneys' fees to cover their efforts to respond to the petition. In their May 22 ruling, Utah's appellate judges stated that they appreciate the attorneys' acceptance of responsibility, but the lack of care is still an abuse of the justice system and caused harm. The opinion noted that other attorneys had to spend extra resources to research and judges were required to address this issue instead of other pending cases. The opinion further states that opposing counsel and Utah's courts cannot be responsible for independently verifying the validity of each citation. 'This court takes the submission of fake precedent seriously,' it said. 'Our system of justice must be able to rely on attorneys complying with their duty.' The case that included the first instance of AI use in Utah courts is a contract case filed by Matthew Garner against Kadince, a software company in North Ogden. He was a shareholder and employee at the company beginning in January 2016, when he was named chief experience officer. In his complaint, Garner claims that in December 2019, when he owned 30% of the company's shares, he was told that he would have to relinquish the majority of his shares or his employment would be terminated. He did relinquish the shares but later realized the employees who had threatened him were breaching his employment agreement by threatening to end his employment without giving him three formal written warnings, according to the complaint. He filed the lawsuit in February 2020. Kadince denied Garner's claims, asked for his lawsuit to be dismissed and claimed that he breached his contract with them by filing the lawsuit. Ultimately, the appellate judges denied both Garner's petition for appeal of a discovery issue and attorney fees order — the petition that included inaccurate citations — and his attorneys' request to allow them to file a new petition. The case will continue as if the appeal had not been filed.
Axios
28-02-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Utah legal community warns against bills targeting judiciary
A coalition of legal professionals spoke out Wednesday outside the state Capitol against a series of proposed reforms aimed at the judicial branch. State of play: The proposals follow Republicans' frustrations with the Utah Supreme Court after facing myriad legal setbacks in the past four years. Zoom in: The legal community has expressed profound concern about the following bills: HB 512, sponsored by Majority Whip Karianne Lisonbee (R-Clearfield), would create a committee made up of state lawmakers that would evaluate and recommend judges for retention. Those recommendations would appear on the ballot during retention elections. In a statement, the Utah State Bar said the new committee would override the work the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission already does and would "inject politics" into the judicial system. HB 451, sponsored by Rep. Jason Kyle (R-Huntsville), would require judges to receive 67% of votes to be retained rather than a simple majority. Chris Peterson, a University of Utah law professor who ran as a Democratic candidate in the 2020 gubernatorial race, said both bills would create a "dangerous incentive for judges to no longer decide cases without fear or favor." What they're saying: "Simply put, these bills are coordinated efforts to weaken the judiciary and remove critical checks on government power that should concern every Utahn," said Kristy Kimball, chair of the Health Law Section of the Utah State Bar Association. Between the lines: Utah Supreme Court justices appear to agree, with Chief Justice Matthew Durant, in a rare rebuke, calling the package of bills "a broad attack on the independence of the judiciary," during a public meeting this week, the Salt Lake Tribune reported. The other side: In response, during a Tuesday news conference, Senate President Stuart Adams said, "We're just trying to make good policy," and said he was open to input. The intrigue: After 20 years in politics, Sen. Daniel Thatcher (R-West Valley City), known for voting against hotly contested bills from his own party, said he's never seen the judiciary weigh in to this degree on any issue. "It's unprecedented," said Kent Davis, an attorney and former prosecutor. The latest: About 900 Utah Bar members, former judges and legal professionals have signed on to a letter to the state legislators, calling on them to reject the bills.
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘A broad attack': Utah's judiciary fights bills threatening its independence
Chris Peterson, a law professor, speaks during a press conference defending judicial independence at the Utah Capitol in Salt Lake City on Feb. 26, 2025. (Katie McKellar / Utah News Dispatch) Tensions between Republican lawmakers and the Utah Supreme Court boiled over this week in the public arena — showcasing not just a frustration with the court's rulings, but also damaged relationships. Additionally, Utah's legal community has come out in force against a flurry of bills aimed at exerting legislative control over Utah's judicial branch of government. More than 900 attorneys signed on to a letter issued to the Utah Legislature on Tuesday, calling on lawmakers to reject all the bills legal professionals say are threatening to inject legislative influence over the Utah judicial branch of government. The developments this week come as Utah lawmakers have waged what even Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Matthew Durrant described during a Judicial Council meeting on Monday as a 'broad attack on the independence of the judiciary.' 'Revenge streak': Utah Bar opposes flurry of bills flexing legislative influence on judiciary Utah's Republican legislative leaders say the bills are not meant to be an 'attack' on the judiciary, but rather an effort to increase 'transparency' and 'accountability' in a branch of government that they worry has become disconnected from Utahns. Comments from lawmakers in recent committee meetings also indicate some lawmakers are frustrated with the Utah Supreme Court's 'productivity.' However, a leader of Utah State Bar has said the issue boils down to a 'revenge streak,' after the Utah Supreme Court issued two opinions that angered Utah's Republican lawmakers — one that sided with plaintiffs in an anti-gerrymandering lawsuit, and one that upheld an injunction blocking the enforcement of Utah's near-total abortion ban. And on Monday, Utah Supreme Court Justice Paige Petersen said it's 'obviously retribution.' At least eight bills have caught the ire of Utah attorneys — all opposed by the Utah State Bar — that in various ways 'threaten to attack, manipulate, retaliate, and control the Utah judiciary, which will harm Utah citizens on both sides of the aisle,' the letter from the attorneys says. 'We cannot stand idly by and allow democracy to be so weakened,' the letter adds in bold. A bipartisan group of Utah attorneys and other legal professionals, including some who signed onto that letter, held a news conference on the steps of the Utah Capitol on Wednesday to urge lawmakers to reject the bills and to call on Cox to veto any that hit his desk. 'As a society, all across the country right now, this trend of attacking our independent judiciary is not limited to Utah alone,' said one of the speakers, Chris Peterson, a University of Utah law professor. 'It's part of a trend of disinformation, conspiracy theories, private vendettas, tribalism, and even corruption that seems to be overtaking some of the most important institutions in our society.' The frustration has crossed party lines. A Republican legislator who hasn't shied away from at times opposing bills sponsored by his GOP colleagues in the Senate, Sen. Daniel Thatcher, R-West Valley City, stood next to reporters and tossed out a question during Wednesday's news conference, asking if Utah's judiciary had taken such a strong stance on legislation in the past. 'I don't think I've ever seen the judiciary branch weigh in on legislation,' Thatcher said. 'Can anybody give me a time when the judiciary has stepped out like this and said the Legislature is out of balance?' Despite experts' warnings, bill to give Utah lawmakers a say in judge elections advances 'Senator, I think it's unprecedented,' said Kent Davis, an attorney and a Salt Lake County Republican Party delegate. It's a remarkable and defining issue of the 2025 Utah Legislature, which has rarely seen such an outpouring of opposition not just from Utah's legal professionals, but also such forceful statements from members of the Utah Supreme Court — which typically remains neutral on legislation. Of the eight bills opposed by the Bar, Utah's judiciary has taken a position of opposition on two of the most concerning bills — both of which are sponsored by influential Republican legislative leaders. They include: HB512, sponsored by House Majority Whip Karianne Lisonbee, R-Clearfield. This bill would create a new body — called the Joint Legislative Committee on Judicial Performance, made up of appointed lawmakers — that would have the power to evaluate hand-picked judges based on no set standards in public hearings. It could also vote to recommend — or not recommend — a judge for retention, and that recommendation would be printed directly on the ballot next to the judge's name. SB296, sponsored by Senate Majority Whip Chris Wilson, R-Logan, which would change how Utah's Supreme Court chief justice gets picked. Rather than the Supreme Court justices electing their chief justice among themselves, the bill would give that responsibility to the governor, subject to a confirmation hearing in the Senate. Additionally, the bill would require the chief justice to be reappointed and confirmed every four years. During a Judicial Council meeting on Monday, members of the Utah Supreme Court aired their frustrations with Utah lawmakers — a rare move for justices sitting on Utah's top court — as they debated how to deal with the slate of bills targeting the judiciary. Justice Paige Petersen had scathing words for one bill in particular, SB296, which would change how the Utah Supreme Court chief justice is picked. 'My preference is kill this silly bill. There's absolutely no reason for (the governor and lawmakers) to be meddling in how we pick the chief justice,' Petersen said during Monday's Judicial Council meeting, urging her colleagues to take a public position to oppose the bill. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX It's unusual for the judiciary to take positions on legislation — and it's even more rare for justices to share such strong words about proposed legislation. But Petersen said it's 'clearly part of a suite of bills that are trying to take aim at judicial independence … and put it under legislative control.' An audibly frustrated Petersen encouraged the council to take a stronger position of opposition against the Legislature's actions this year rather than staying neutral, even as delicate negotiations play out. This year, the judiciary should do more to stand up for itself, she said. 'It seems like our approach is, can you please just punch us in the stomach instead of punching us in the face and (we'll) be happy and neutral about it,' Petersen said. Petersen also pointed to other bills proposed to raise the vote threshold for judicial retention elections to 67% and one that a member of House leadership is exploring to expand the number of Utah Supreme Court justices. She said the Utah State Bar — which has strongly opposed at least eight bills this year and has issued multiple news releases publicly characterizing them as threats to the judiciary's independence — has been 'out there saying this is unacceptable, and we're saying, 'Oh, we're taking you in good faith.'' Lawmakers aren't 'just trying to solve problems,' Petersen said. 'No, it's retribution. It's obviously retribution, and I'm not sure why we're not saying that,' she said. Durrant, though he took a more tempered tone, said Petersen 'makes excellent points.' He applauded 'how strategically' the Judicial Council's legislative liaison committee had been approaching discussions with lawmakers, and that the 'natural inclination' is to take positions on bills individually. However, Durrant agreed that lawmakers appeared to be waging a broader attack. 'I view it as a broad attack on the independence of the judiciary,' he said. Durrant acknowledged that Wilson's bill likely wouldn't affect him as the current chief justice, but he said it would likely impact future members of the Utah Supreme Court. And he pushed back on the characterization that it would follow the same model as the U.S. Supreme Court, which doesn't require reconfirmation hearings every four years. 'That element to it is an attempt to influence and exert legislative control over the chief justice,' Durrant said. When asked about Petersen and Durrant's comments about lawmakers' actions this session, Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, told reporters on Tuesday, 'I see it differently.' 'I think we're trying to make good policy up here,' he said. Adams also told reporters Wednesday that as the bills make their way through the legislative process, they'll be refined, and it remains to be seen which bills survive the session. 'We're trying to knock the rough edges off, get all the input,' Adams said, adding that 'we welcome' input from the public, the judiciary and other attorneys. Adams, however, also spoke favorably of Wilson's bill, arguing 'there ought to be a little bit of a check on the judge every four years.' While Adams said he's not supportive of making judges elected, he said he thinks Wilson's bill hits a middle ground 'that makes sense.' In a Senate Judiciary Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee hearing Tuesday night, Wilson changed his bill — which would have also required a new appointment process for presiding judges for the Court of Appeals — to only apply to the Utah Supreme Court chief justice. Wilson argued his bill would mirror the federal model, noting that when a vacancy occurs in the U.S. Supreme Court, the president is responsible for nominating a replacement, then the Senate confirms or rejects the nomination. 'Involving the executive and legislative branches ensures that the system of checks and balances is utilized as our Founding Fathers intended,' Wilson said. 'The process helps preserve the fairness and impartiality of the judiciary, preventing any one branch from gaining undue influence.' Wilson said his bill would also allow Utahns to participate in Senate confirmation hearings, 'offering a platform for citizens to voice their opinions on who will be the chief justice and ask questions about the nominee's record, promoting trust in the judicial system.' 'Ultimately, this balance between executive authority and legislative oversight ensures the citizens play a direct role in shaping the state's judiciary,' Wilson said. Michael Drexel, assistant state court administrator at the Administrative Office of the Courts, told lawmakers the judiciary is opposed to SB269, but he added 'I want to be really careful about why that is.' The Utah Constitution does give the Legislature the ability to choose how the chief justice is selected, Drexel acknowledged. But just because lawmakers can, that doesn't mean they should, he said. 'Our opposition is based on our concern that this is an unwise use of that ability to craft the chief justice selection process in this way,' Drexel said. 'The justices of the Supreme Court know best who can lead them, who can administer and attend to those functions.' The chief justice serves an important role within the judicial branch as the presiding council of the judicial council, which administers the judiciary, he said. The chief justice delivers the State of the Judiciary speech each year and acts as the 'voice of the judiciary on legislative matters.' 'As a result, what we end up with is an opportunity, I think, for the political pressure to be exerted on this actor who is so pivotal at the face of the judiciary,' Drexel said. 'We're concerned that that opportunity, that those pressures may end up negatively impacting the ability of the judiciary to function as an independent third branch of government.' Drexel said what's 'most objectionable' is what would make Wilson's bill different from the federal model, by requiring the chief justice to be subject to reappointment every four years. 'I can't think of another instance where an elected official is called before another branch of government in this way,' Drexel said. 'Pressure could be exerted on them to perform in a certain way. That buffer exists in the federal system for the very reason we don't want Congress putting pressure on the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.' Drexel urged lawmakers to either continue to allow the chief justice to be selected by his or her peers, or to at least take out the provision that would require reappointment every four years. When pressed by reporters on whether Wilson would be willing to remove that provision of his bill, the senator said, 'I don't think so,' calling it 'important' because it allows 'our citizens to be able to weigh in.' Also during Tuesday's Senate committee hearing, debate over Wilson's bill illustrated that frustrations between Utah lawmakers and the Utah Supreme Court also boil down to strained relationships. Sen. Brady Brammer, R-Pleasant Grove — a senator who is running multiple bills that are opposed by the Utah State Bar and listed in Wednesday's letter from 900 attorneys — was quick to grill Drexel about Petersen's comment to 'kill this silly bill.' 'Is it the position of the Judicial Council that this is a 'silly bill'?' Brammer asked Drexel. 'No,' Drexel answered. 'Is that just the position of one of the justices of our Supreme Court?' Brammer pressed. 'Those words were said,' Drexel said. Brammer then went on to question whether the Legislature should be a check on the judiciary, to which Drexel said it already is — by controlling its purse strings. Then Brammer criticized the Utah Supreme Court, accusing it of being 'woefully unproductive.' 'In 2023, they were the least productive Supreme Court in America, issuing only 25 opinions. In 2022, they only issued 41,' Brammer said. Last year, the court issued 46 opinions, and this year so far the court has issued one opinion. In 2019, the year before the COVID-19 pandemic, the Utah Supreme Court issued 70 opinions. 'We have some serious concerns as to what they're doing, especially when they come to ask us and ask for money for additional court of appeals judges,' Brammer said. 'So it seems to us that rather than take caseload from the court of appeals, they've come to the Legislature and said, 'We want you to fund our lack of productivity.'' In response to Brammer's allegations, Tania Mashburn, director of communications for the Utah State Courts, issued a lengthy statement on Wednesday saying 'comparing volumes of published opinions between states is not an apples-to-apples comparison.' 'Different courts have different structure and publish different things,' she said, pointing to Wyoming, which has no intermediate appellate court like Utah does, so the Wyoming Supreme Court's opinions often are shorter decisions in less complex cases. Brammer asked Drexel whether the Legislature has any role to play 'in saying we need some leadership with regards to productivity, assignment of cases, taking of cases, things like that?' Drexel said 'of course the Legislature can play a role in that,' but he argued there are other ways to address those concerns, 'including having sit-down conversations and discussions about it.' Brammer said he has asked the judiciary to 'produce data' and discuss the issue, but 'they've still not recognized this as a problem. They believe that everything they're doing is just fine. They don't view this as a problem.' Drexel pushed back on Brammer, adding that 'we did provide data' and had attended a previous committee hearing to discuss the data, but never got an opportunity to speak to the issue. 'Now I understand it took a long time, but we did a heavy lift trying to put together the data so it could be comprehensive and dependable. And so I do take a little bit of umbrage at being criticized publicly for the efforts that we went through to be responsive.' Brammer said the issue also comes down to 'a good working relationship,' noting that while the Utah State Bar opposes many of his bills, they still have open lines of communication. 'Right now, the relationship between the Supreme Court and the Legislature is pretty frayed, pretty broken, and frankly you solve those things by more contact, not less,' Brammer said. 'I don't understand why we should treat the Supreme Court differently on our confirmations and why it is such an offense to come back and talk to the Legislature and be accountable to some degree as to the performance of the judicial branch?' Brammer added. 'Why (is that) such an offensive thing, when we do it for every single executive appointment in the state?' Wilson's bill passed out of the Senate Judiciary Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee on a 4-2 vote, with Democrats voting against. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
25-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Despite experts' warnings, bill to give Utah lawmakers a say in judge elections advances
Rep. Karianne Lisonbee, R-Clearfield, works at her desk on the House floor at the Capitol in Salt Lake City on Thursday, Feb. 6, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch) Retired judges. The Utah State Bar. Courts administrators. Academic experts who study judicial retention systems across the country. All of them warned against upending Utah's current and nationally revered judicial retention process. More than a dozen people urged lawmakers to stop HB512 in its tracks during the bill's first committee hearing Monday, warning it could inject politics into a system that's supposed to be nonpartisan, lead judges to be beholden to public opinion rather than facts, and even violate separation of powers between the state's three branches of government. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX And yet, after listening to all of these warnings, the House Judiciary Committee voted 7-2 to endorse HB512 and advance it to the House floor. Only the committee's two Democrats — Reps Veronica Mauga, D-Salt Lake City, and Grant Miller, D-Salt Lake City — voted against it. The bill's sponsor, House Majority Whip Karianne Lisonbee, R-Clearfield, framed her bill as an effort to give voters more information about how to vote in judicial retention elections. She said every election cycle she and other lawmakers get constant questions from voters on how they should vote, indicating that 'many Utahns feel like they don't have enough information to make informed decisions.' 'It is about time that voters have the information they need to vote in judicial retention elections,' she said. So Lisonbee wants to create a new committee called the Legislative Committee on Judicial Performance, made up solely of nine legislators appointed by the House speaker and Senate president, and only two of whom would be required to be from a different political party. That committee would be free to hold public hearings to evaluate judges based on no set standard. If the legislative committee votes to recommend — or not recommend — a judge for retention, that recommendation would then be printed next to the judge's name on the ballot. It would also be printed in the voter information pamphlet. Lisonbee said it would be up to the committee's discretion whether they review a judge or not. Lisonbee's bill is just one of at least eight bills aimed at creating new rules for the judiciary — part of an effort a leader of the Utah State Bar recently characterized as a 'revenge streak' after at least two high-profile rulings last summer that angered legislators because the courts sided against lawmakers. Taken together, legal experts worry all of these bills could disrupt the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary, which is supposed to keep the other branches of government in check — but HB512 is of particular concern to the Bar. Utah already has a judge review body called the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission (JPEC), which provides voters nonpartisan information regarding how judges score on factors including legal ability, integrity and judicial temperament, and administrative skills. Lisonbee's bill would not replace JPEC, but the legislative committee would be a whole new, separate body that judges would need to answer to. 'Revenge streak': Utah Bar opposes flurry of bills flexing legislative influence on judiciary Utah's existing JPEC already publishes detailed reports on every judge on its website and provides information for voters in voter pamphlets — but not directly on the ballot. For the 2024 election, performance evaluations for 50 judges were included in that year's voter information pamphlet and the group reported seeing a surge of interest on its website after voters received their ballots. But to Lisonbee, JPEC isn't doing enough to inform voters. 'JPEC may do a great job, but the voters are not seeing it, and they are not feeling it. It is not something the voters are relying on,' Lisonbee said, arguing that's shown by a lack of variability across counties when it comes to voter retention, which is usually an 80% to 20% split vote. 'So instead of a perfunctory vote against, it seems to me that an informed vote — whether in support or against — would be a preferable exercise of a fundamental right,' Lisonbee said. Only one person, Maryann Christensen with the conservative group Utah Legislative Watch, encouraged lawmakers to support HB512, calling the current system 'flawed.' She said Utahns rarely vote not to retain judges, pointing to a case in 2006 when a controversial former 3rd District Court Judge Leslie Lewis was ousted by voters. Lewis lost her bench two years before the Legislature created JPEC in 2008, and six years before the first election cycle that JPEC's evaluations became available to Utahns, in 2012. Questions about why Utah judges tend to score high and be retained are not new. On its website, JPEC addresses frequently asked questions, including why so many judges have scores that 'meet or exceed minimum performance standards.' That's because judges with unfavorable evaluations often step down from the bench before the next election, according to JPEC. Judges also receive confidential midterm evaluations from JPEC, which give judges feedback to improve their performance before their next evaluation. Additionally, JPEC notes Utah already has one of the most rigorous state judicial appointment processes in the country, resulting in high-performing judges. Lisonbee anticipated concerns that her bill would violate separation of powers principles, threaten the judiciary as an independent body and allow the Legislature to put its thumb on the scale when it comes to judicial retention elections. She claimed those arguments are simply 'not true' — and that the Legislature has not only a right, but a role to play in setting rules the judiciary must adhere to. 'Our constitution constantly places the Legislature back into the middle of the administration of the courts,' Lisonbee said. 'To say that the courts are an ivory tower off to the side that the Legislature should not interact with is simply not in accordance with the way that our constitution is structured.' She also argued 'the idea that the judiciary is fully independent from the Legislature is simply false, and is unconstitutionally false. It is structurally meant to be tied to the Legislature.' But following her comments, the vast majority of people that weighed in on HB512 during Monday's public hearing — 13 out of 14 speakers — urged lawmakers to vote it down. A former Utah lawmaker, Rep. Lowry Snow, a Republican, was the first to speak against it. He was one of the architects of JPEC when he was serving as president of the Utah State Bar. 'Tap the brakes on this legislation. There are serious issues,' he said, noting the bill would not enact any 'standards' for the legislative committee to review judges against. With ballots out, judges' review group sees surge in interest The Utah State Bar has also strongly opposed the bill. Mark Morris, a Bar commissioner, said HB512 'goes far beyond the stated goals of merely educating voters and creating more transparency, a concept with which we agree.' 'The only concern a judge should have is applying facts to the law dispassionately,' he said. But if HB512 becomes law, Morris said legal experts worry 'that a judge will no longer be concerned solely with applying facts to the law, but be concerned with public opinion, be concerned with the views of a committee.' 'It should never be in the mind of a judge when making a decision whether the public opinions or even the committee opinions will be offended by a particular result,' he said. Morris also pointed out Utah law currently bans electioneering within 150 feet of a polling place, arguing that if HB512 becomes law, electioneering would occur 'within three inches of the name on a ballot.' That's the Bar's biggest concern, he said. Michael Drexel, assistant state court administrator at the Administrative Office of the Courts, also opposed HB512. 'I've spoken to enough legislators this session to realize that there is frustration and disappointment with the judiciary, and I suspect that this legislation is coming in part from that frustration and disappointment,' Drexel said. 'But that shouldn't be the basis for making changes to the law that are fundamentally inconsistent with foundational principles of three co-equal branches of government and election integrity.' 'For the judiciary to serve the people, judges must be free to make decisions driven by the law and the facts and not based on who the litigants are and how they might react to those decisions,' Drexel added. To complaints that judges need to be closer to the people, Drexel said they're already on the 'front lines.' 'They look in the eyes of mothers and fathers and separate them from their children for life,' he said. 'They look into the eyes of defendants and put them in prison. They see it firsthand, and they do care about doing their job well and with fidelity.' Drexel, however, also welcomed any discussion to help better inform voters. 'If there's a desire to give voters more information, you will find that we will be there at any conversation to discuss how we can be part of that process.' However, Drexel argued HB512 it's not the 'solution to the problem of voters needing more information,' adding that there's likely more information available to them through JPEC's process than voters are currently 'digesting.' 'But I'm certainly open to the possibility that there are key questions that voters want to answer about judges as they're deciding how to vote that maybe is not as accessible to them as it possibly could be,' he said. Two retired judges urged lawmakers not to support HB512. They included Kevin Allen, a former 1st District Court judge, and David Connors, a former 2nd District Court judge. Allen spoke against opening up judicial evaluations to a public hearing where 'people can come and say whatever they want.' He warned that would be 'a very dangerous path to go down' that would be 'disastrous.' 'That's going to be assumed as facts? That's how we're going to do this?' he said. 'That just flies in the face of everything that we stand for. Not just as judges, but as a people.' Connors was especially concerned about printing a legislative committee's recommendation directly on the ballot. 'To me, that is the aspect of this bill that makes it run completely afoul of our notion of our revered notions of separation of powers,' he said. Three academic professionals also spoke against the bill arguing Utah's judicial selection and retention process is already nationally renowned. They included Jordan Singer, a law professor at the New England School of Law in Boston, who said he's been studying judicial performance evaluation programs for nearly two decades, and he was part of the task force that helped set JPEC up back in 2007. 'I monitor every (judicial performance) program in the country,' Singer said. 'There is none finer than what the JPEC in Utah is doing right now.' He also warned lawmakers against what he predicted would be an unintended consequence of HB512: voter confusion and backlash. He said in the last 10 years, states have been moving away from telling voters how to vote in judicial retention elections. 'Making a direct statement to voters, especially on the ballot itself, will likely anger or frustrate citizens who don't like to be told how to vote,' he said. 'Injecting a joint legislative committee into the judicial evaluation process is likely to create confusion and suspicion, in the sense that voters will question both the work of the joint committee and the JPEC and will be perplexed if the JPEC's assessment does not match that of the joint committee.' Linda Smith, a Salt Lake City resident and a retired law professor, warned lawmakers against HB512's 'constitutional difficulties,' and urged them not to undermine JPEC's work. Amendment D ballot language was misleading to voters, Utah Supreme Court affirms 'They survey lawyers. They survey staff. They survey jurors. They have court observers who collect data, and then they collect data about the judges' processing of cases. All of that data is crunched by the JPEC committee,' Smith said. She said if that data needs to be more publicly available, 'that's the way to go,' not by establishing a legislative committee. 'I fear we will deter excellent people from remaining judges or applying to be judges if we continue down this politicized path,' she said. Susan Olson, political scientist who has also studied judicial retention and selection systems around the country, also warned HB512 would be unlike any judicial retention process other states have. 'The degree of potentially partisan intrusion into judicial independence that HB512 will make is unprecedented and a serious violation of the separation of powers,' Olson said. Lisonbee had the last word on Monday. She concluded her presentation by quoting from a Utah Supreme Court ruling — one that the state's highest court most recently issued to check the Legislature. In that case, the courts voided a ballot question for a 2024 proposed constitutional amendment, known as Amendment D, that would have weakened voters' ballot initiative power — but the language that appeared on the ballot (written by legislative leaders) characterized the amendment as one that would 'strengthen' and 'clarify' the ballot initiative process. 'In the words of the Utah Supreme Court,' Lisonbee said, 'voters need proper information with sufficient 'clarity' to enable them to 'express their will.'' All seven Republicans present in Monday's committee voted to endorse the bill. It now goes to the House chamber for further consideration. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
21-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion: Utah Legislature's attack on judiciary is part of a dangerous trend to violate checks and balances
Utah's judicial system is under attack. A series of bills seeks to expand the power of government, weaken the ability of everyday Utahns to challenge government overreach and stretch thin our state's legal norms. In proposing these bills, some members of the Utah Legislature appear all too ready to participate in the newest political trend — caring little for future ramifications and delighting in chipping away at the checks and balances of the judicial branch. No matter how trendy, these efforts must be opposed. SB203 significantly limits how groups can challenge harmful laws passed by the legislative branch. SJR9 needlessly narrows the window for plaintiffs to file suit to challenge an unconstitutional law, while SB204 creates special rules that make it easier for the Legislature to appeal a ruling against them. HB412 would eliminate a requirement that boards and commissions with oversight of the judiciary be bipartisan. HB512 and HB451 would increase opportunities for politicians to add their own nominees to the judiciary and make retention of qualified judges on the bench more difficult for voters, unnecessarily introducing party politics into and elevating the voices of partisan lawmakers in the judicial retention process. SB296 would inexplicably insert both the executive and legislative branches into the affairs of the Utah Supreme Court, encouraging more, rather than less, political interference into a branch of government that should be independent. So many bills with a direct impact on the judiciary and its role in limiting legislative power have been proposed this session, it is difficult to view it as a coincidence. Coordinated effort or not, the result is a slicing away of one check or balance after another that, when taken together, will blunt the protections of Utah's constitution. Several of the preceding bills are on such shaky constitutional ground that they will almost certainly face lengthy legal challenges. These legal battles will cost taxpayers money unnecessarily, and, even if the laws survive challenge, none of these bills will have an upside for anyone living in the Beehive State beyond elected officials looking to expand their influence on judges, avoid accountability or skirt our state's constitution. Alarmingly, these bills are not locally driven responses to isolated policies in need of fixing. Instead, they appear to be targeted retaliation against previous efforts by Utahns to assert their constitutional rights and oppose government overreach. After Utah courts acted to protect the people's rights, the Legislature has responded by attempting to insulate themselves from anyone who would check their power. And the backlash is not subtle. These bills, taken together, would result in weakening the judiciary's ability to check the executive and legislative power balance, opening the door for lawmakers to more easily pass unconstitutional and unpopular laws with no consequences. The Utah State Bar has rightly come out in opposition to the majority of these proposed bills, and lawyers and non-lawyers in the state should share its concern. More critically, members of the Utah Legislature should remember that the job they have been elected to do is to preserve the power of the people, not increase their own. We must resist this political trend of expanding one branch of government at the expense of the judicial branch within the borders of our own state or it will become the norm. The norm will numb us, resulting in a system and set of laws biased toward a select few. Judicial norms and constitutional processes have never been flashy or trendy — but that is exactly why they must be preserved; these norms and processes will preserve us and our state. This latest power grab by the Legislature needs checking now and consistently until this trend reverses and the critical checks and balances of our state government are respected once again.
