SJR 9 Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Civil Procedure on Injunctions
What It Does:
This resolution to amend Court procedure institutes a 28-day time limit for filing an injunction challenging the constitutionality of newly-enacted state laws starting at the end of the session. Technically, that would only be 8 days after the Governor is required to take action after a law is sent to him. This puts a huge pressure on advocates and erodes the viability of the judicial process to check legislative power.
Why We Hate It:
SJR 9 erodes the ability of the judicial process to check legislative power by creating an unnecessary and aggressive timeline for laws to be challenged.
HB 512 Judicial Retention Changes
What It Does:
HB 512 would give the legislature significant influence in judicial elections, under the guise of “evaluating and giving recommendations” on judges and justices. The bill creates the Joint Legislative Committee on Judicial Performance (JCLJP) to evaluate judges and provide recommendations to the public as to whether the judge should be retained for another term. These recommendations from lawmakers on JCLJP will be placed directly on the ballot above questions on judicial retention, something that isn’t even done for recommendations and evaluations from the already-existing Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission (JPEC).
Why We Hate It:
Judges already go through a significant nonpartisan review process through JPEC. This bill would give the legislature significant power over the judicial retention system and allow them to put the thumb on the scale by creating a redundant system within the legislature to evaluate judges and influence public opinion.
Additionally, having JCLJP’s recommendations placed directly on the ballot would place biased opinions directly in front of voters on their ballots, instead of a more appropriate place like the Voter Information Pamphlet.
SB 203 Judicial Standing Amendments
What It Does:
SB 203 would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for third parties to challenge laws on behalf of individuals by altering the requirements for “third-party standing”, which is a doctrine traditionally defined by the judicial branch. Civil rights groups defending voting rights, environmental groups protecting recreation access, or other organizations challenging unconstitutional laws would face a huge hurdle: proving that there is “no way” for the affected party to bring their own action before they can take on the case on their behalf.
SB 203 also places additional requirements on associations that might bring lawsuits on behalf of their members by adding a requirement for “associational standing”, which is another standing doctrine developed by courts. Member associations would have to plead “with particularity” that its members had consented to the association bringing suit on their behalf, in addition to naming the individual members that satisfy traditional standing requirements.
Why We Hate It:
This bill is an overreach of power and upsets our constitutional system of checks and balances
- The definition of who can bring a lawsuit belongs to the judicial branch, not the legislature
- It is likely unconstitutional and could lead to costly litigation, wasting the taxpayer’s time and resources.
We will lose accountability:
- Lawsuits on behalf of third-parties or from associations have been a way of holding government accountable when they pass possibly unconstitutional laws
- Nobody wants to challenge laws in courts,the courts are our last resort
- If lawmakers don’t pass unconstitutional laws, these lawsuits won’t be a problem
This bill silences the voices of everyday Utahns, 3rd party standing is part of how we ensure we’re heard
- Putting the financial, time, and emotional burden of a lawsuit all on an individual would crush the majority of us that don’t have millions of dollars to put into a lawsuit. Everyday Utahns do not have the ability to take the time off of work or away from caregiving to sit in court all day.
- There are many reasons why people may not want or be able to bring a lawsuit to assert their rights; lack of resources, privacy and safety concerns, time , etc
This bill represents a serious power grab that disrupts our system of checks and balances by shifting power away from Utah citizens and courts and giving it to the Legislature.
HB 451 Judicial Election Amendments
What It Does:
HB 451 changes the number of votes required for a justice or judge to be retained in a judicial election from a simple majority of 50% approval to a supermajority of voters at 67% approval.
Why We Hate It:
Legislators are elected by a simple majority of 50%, why is the legislature imposing different standards than ones they are held to?
