Utah News Dispatch
Utah lawmakers revive ‘compromise’ bill to give governor, Senate power to pick chief justice
Sen. Chris Wilson, R-Logan, listens during a press conference with Senate leadership at the Capitol in Salt Lake City on the first day of the legislative session, Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)
Earlier this year, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox vetoed a bill that would have given him and the state Senate power over choosing the next Utah Supreme Court chief justice — but now, Utah lawmakers are moving to bring it back in a potential special session in September.
This time, however, the bill’s sponsor, Senate Majority Whip Chris Wilson, R-Logan, has included a key change: the next chief justice would have a single, eight-year term, rather than being subject to reappointment every four years.
Currently, the Utah Supreme Court’s five justices elect their own chief justice. But earlier this year, the Utah Legislature passed SB296, one of several bills that sought to exert more legislative influence over the judiciary. It would have required the Utah Supreme Court chief justice to be subject to reappointment from the governor — and Senate confirmation — every four years.
Cox, when he issued his veto, specifically took issue with the four-year term provision included in SB296, calling it “problematic” to require reappointment so often. But Wednesday, while presenting his draft legislation to the Judiciary Interim Committee, Wilson said a deal has been struck.
Cox vetoes bill that would have given governor power over appointing Utah chief justice
“This … is a compromise bill that we’ve been negotiating with the governor,” Wilson said.
If lawmakers pass his bill as currently written, after Utah’s current Chief Justice Matthew Durrant vacates his seat or his term ends in April 2028, the governor will appoint a new chief justice, subject to confirmation from the Utah Senate. The bill would also limit a justice from serving as chief justice for more than one, eight-year term.
Wilson also said the bill would align Utah with 13 other states that allow the governor to appoint their chief justices. Currently, Utah is among 22 states that let justices elect their chief justice.
Wilson said with these changes, “the governor is completely on board with this legislation.”
“We’ve been negotiating with him for a number of months,” Wilson said. “So yes, he is on board with this bill.”
Cox’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday seeking to verify Wilson’s comments. The judiciary also hasn’t taken a public position on the new bill. A spokesperson for the Utah Supreme Court said the judiciary didn’t have a comment on it.
The Judiciary Interim Committee later voted to favorably recommend Wilson’s draft legislation for consideration during the potential special session next month. The motion passed on a vote of 7-4 from House committee members and 4-1 from Senate committee members, with Democrats voting against.
No veto override session this year, Utah legislative leaders say
The apparent compromise came after Republican legislative leaders announced this spring that they would not be calling a veto override session this year after Cox stopped SB296, along with five other bills, from becoming law. Instead, they said they would “focus on constructive dialogue and thoughtful policymaking during the interim to find the best path forward that benefits all Utahns.”
Cox had previously said he expected to call a special session in May to deal with several bills he signed with the expectation that they would be tweaked to address various issues, but the month came and went without a call as discussions took longer than expected. Now, he’s expected to issue the call for sometime in September.
Cox hasn’t yet issued an official agenda, but lawmakers this week discussed several drafts of legislation they expect to be considered, including the new version of SB296.
Why do Utah lawmakers want to change how the chief justice is selected?
Wilson has argued that requiring the chief justice to be appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate would allow for more public input in the selection of the chief justice, who leads the state’s Judicial Council, the policy-making body for the judiciary.
But the bill also came during a time of unusual tension between lawmakers and the Utah Supreme Court, which has issued several rulings that have upset Republican legislative leaders.
Wilson’s SB296 was one of several bills that surfaced during the 2025 Utah Legislature that sought to exert more control over the judiciary. The tension between the GOP-controlled Legislature and the judiciary reached a fever pitch during the 2025 session, when legal professionals and even some Utah Supreme Court justices criticized lawmakers’ bills as an attack on the judicial branch’s independence.
But that clash largely fizzled when Utah’s Republican legislative leaders announced they had struck a deal with the judiciary to drop the most controversial proposals, including a bill that would have given legislators a say in judicial retention elections. In exchange, other bills including SB296 would advance, with the Judicial Council taking a neutral position.
After weeks of division, Utah legislative leaders announce deal with judiciary
Despite that compromise, however, Cox vetoed SB296 anyway. He wrote in a letter to legislative leaders that while the new power was “tempting,” he took issue with requiring the chief justice to be reappointed every four years.
“Supporters of the bill correctly point out that the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. If that were all the bill did, it is something I could support,” Cox wrote. “However, this bill takes a very meaningful and problematic additional step: requiring the appointment process to occur every four years.”
Cox also wrote that it’s “not lost on me that this bill actually gives me — the governor — more power than I currently possess.”
“I admit it is very tempting to sign this bill and assure that the Chief Justice would need to stay in my good graces to retain his or her position,” Cox continued. “Knowing the head magistrate of our state’s highest court would have to think twice before ruling against me or checking my power is difficult to reject.”
However, Cox concluded, “just because I can doesn’t mean I should.”
After Cox’s veto, House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, and Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, issued a joint statement saying Cox’s decision “undermines that good-faith compromise” between the Legislature and judiciary that ultimately led to lawmakers abandoning the other bills, and the Judicial Council and Utah State Bar taking a neutral position.”
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
They also said the Legislature “remains firm in its commitment to improve transparency, efficiency, and integrity within all branches of government to ensure we’re responsive to and representative of the people in our state.”
Arguments
During the bill’s public comment period on Wednesday, a Utahn, Steven Rosenberg, opposed the change, questioning its need.
“If something isn’t broken, then why are we changing it? If it’s worked through the history of this great state of Utah, why must we change it now?” Rosenberg said. “Leave it alone. Let it be. Let the justices choose their own leader and let the branches be separate as they were intended.”
Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Wood Cross, pushed back, arguing the Utah Constitution allows the Legislature to decide the process for how the chief justice is selected.
The Sutherland Institute, a conservative think tank, also circulated a statement to the Judiciary Interim Committee expressing support for the bill, saying it was “grateful the Legislature is considering measures to strengthen the institutions of free government through creating reasonable checks and balances.”
“This will help ensure that the judiciary can focus on its constitutional mandate to faithfully apply existing law,” the Sutherland Institute’s statement continued. “Ultimately, what is needed is for each branch of government to fulfill its constitutional functions fully and independently. For the judiciary, that requires judges to be committed to the constitutional principle that the text of the constitution and of the laws enacted pursuant to its authority governs their decisions rather than considerations of policy.”
During the bill’s debate, Weiler made a point of noting that the chief justice doesn’t have the power to tell the Utah Supreme Court’s other four judges how to rule on decisions or decide what cases get heard.
Utah Supreme Court disputes lawmakers’ allegations that it’s not productive enough
Rather, the chief justices’ duties primarily entail acting as the chief administrative officer for the judiciary, responsible for administering the day-to-day operations of the court. The chief justice also acts as presiding officer of the Utah Judicial Council, which is the governing body of the courts’ administrative rules.
Sen. Brady Brammer, R-Alpine, argued that many other top positions within other state agencies and branches of government are chosen through appointment and confirmation processes.
He also said “underlying this” bill are “some administrative concerns as far as decision work load within the court.”
“Some of this is to say, ‘Hey, there may be at times something that isn’t quite functioning on the broader scale in terms of the number of decisions,’ which have decreased quite a bit over the last few years,” Brammer said, alluding to a complaint he made earlier this year that the Utah Supreme Court was being “productive” enough.
In a rare statement issued in February, the Utah Supreme Court disputed those allegations.
“I think they’re working to fix that,” Brammer added, “but that is one of the things that was an impetus for making this change, so there’s a little more input, a little more push, on the commitments that are made with regards to the nuts and bolts functioning of the court, which the chief justice has a lot to do with.”
