UTAH STATE CAPITOL—Although somewhat controversial among lawmakers, SB134 (Court Amendments) passed out of the Legislature and was signed by the governor Jan. 31.

The bill calls for “statutory provisions related to judges and justices for Utah Courts.” 

SB134:

• Increases the number of Utah Supreme Court justices from five to seven.

• Increases the number of Utah Court of Appeals judges from seven to nine.

• Increases the number of Utah District Court judges, adding three judges in each District Court in Districts 3, 4 and 5. 

• Amends provisions on the recruitment period for a judicial vacancy.

• Provides judicial support with additional law clerks, judicial assistants and staff to support the work of the judiciary.

“The only part that’s controversial about the bill is it added two Supreme Court judges to the courts,” said Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, who is an attorney. “Some say we don’t really need those. We wanted to expand the Supreme Court for a couple of reasons. First of all, we called for this, like, four years ago.”

A lot of people are saying the Legislature is trying to pack the court because they’re mad at the courts right now, he said. “All of our judges in the state have been appointed by Republican governors and confirmed by a supermajority of Republican senators, so I don’t really see it as court-packing.”

Some people are going to attack the Legislature for the timing, Weiler said. “That’s their prerogative. It’s because of the partisan gerrymandering issue, the abortion issue and the vouchers issue.”

A majority of states that are the size of Utah have seven justices, he said. “We’re one of the only states with five. We had five justices when we were a state of 400,000 people and now we’re a state of 3.6 million, and in 20 years we’re probably going to have over 5 million. As Utah’s population has grown and legal issues have become more complex, these courts are now managing significantly heavier caseloads. This has led to delays, backlogs and longer wait times for decisions that directly affect Utah families and businesses.”

SB134 was one of the first bills to pass through the Legislature this session. “We value the courts,” said Senate President J. Stuart Adams. “It’s an important issue.”

 “I think it’s a great bill,” said Sen. Chris H. Wilson, R-Logan. “There was a lot of support from attorneys and judges. I think it’s a great step forward in getting much-needed resources. Looking at the number of filings, looking at the case complexity, it’s obvious in my opinion as we gather the evidence that it’s long overdue.”

The Utah House Democratic Caucus had a different opinion and issued the following statement Jan. 31 in response to Gov. Spencer Cox signing SB134 into law:

“The Utah House Democrats have serious concerns about SB134. Every member of our caucus voted against the bill on Friday (Jan. 30).

“The bill would unnecessarily expand the Utah Supreme Court by adding two justices at a significant and permanent cost, with no demonstrated need from the court and with opposition from the Utah State Bar. There is no meaningful backlog in the state Supreme Court or workload that justifies this expansion. 

“We are left to interpret these changes as an attempt to undermine the independence of the judicial branch of government. The timing and speed with which this bill moved through the legislative process further limited the opportunity for thoughtful consideration.

“The Utah House Democrats will continue to advocate for targeted, responsible investments that strengthen the courts where Utahns need it most.”

The bill went into effect immediately. “So now they have to post the vacancies and they have to have a time period for people to apply and then the governor has to interview them,” Weiler said. “So we’re probably looking at three to four months, is my guess, at a minimum.”

Weiler said it wouldn’t shock him if they do the Supreme Court first then do the Court of Appeals. “You might have finalists for the Supreme Court that don’t make it but then they might want to turn around and apply for the Court of Appeals. Two of the last three vacancies we’ve had on the Supreme Court have been filled from the Court of Appeals.”