Upon recommendations from the Governmental Relations Committee and the Bar Commission assessing the bills’ impact on the administration of justice, judicial impartiality, and public confidence in the courts, the Utah State Bar has taken positions on the following bills using the “Keller-Pure” approach:
UPDATED 3-3-2026
| Bill | Sponsor | Bill Summary | Basis for Support or Opposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| HB 94 – Criminal Accounts Receivable Amendments | Rep. Grant Miller | The bill amends provisions governing criminal accounts receivable to standardize court procedures related to outstanding financial obligations in criminal cases. By codifying existing practices and clarifying payment processes and related court authority, the legislation ensures more consistent treatment of individuals across jurisdictions and reduces procedural disparities. | We support this bill because it promotes fairness, uniformity, and transparency within the criminal justice system. By clarifying and standardizing procedures statewide, the bill helps ensure similarly situated individuals are treated consistently, enhances judicial efficiency, and strengthens public confidence in the equitable administration of justice. |
| HB 260 – Unauthorized Practice of Law Amendments | Rep. Anthony Loubet | The bill creates both civil and criminal penalties for individuals who practice law without a license, allows courts to award attorney fees and issue injunctions, and provides a three-year statute of limitations for related actions. It also ensures that people harmed by unauthorized practice can sue for damages. | We support this bill as a necessary update to Utah’s unauthorized practice of law statutes that strengthen consumer protection while providing clear enforcement tools. We appreciate Rep. Loubet’s collaboration with the Bar’s Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee in developing this legislation. |
| HB 262 – Judicial Election Amendments | Rep. Jason Kyle | This bill increases the percentage of the vote required for judicial retention from 50% to 67%. This would be the highest retention percentage in the nation. A similar bill was run and defeated last legislative session. | We oppose this bill because it threatens the independence of the judiciary by creating greater opportunities for disgruntled litigants or political interest groups to impact judicial retention elections. This adversely impacts public trust and confidence in a judiciary system that can be so easily politicized. |
| HB 274 – Sentencing Commission Amendments | Rep. Mike Schultz | This bill makes amendments to the Utah Sentencing Commission to remove all defense lawyers from the Commission and to add more members from law enforcement. | We strongly oppose this bill because it politicizes the Utah Sentencing Commission by restructuring its membership in a way that favors law enforcement and partisan viewpoints. The commission’s credibility depends on a balanced, nonpartisan mix of perspectives, particularly between defense attorneys and prosecutors. Altering that balance risks undermining its integrity, objectivity, and public trust. |
| HB 366 S01 – Judicial Cases Distribution Amendments | Rep. Jordan Teuscher | This substitute bill modifies how certain municipal cases are assigned and heard in district court. It requires presiding judges to assign at least one district court judge to municipal cases filed, appealed, or transferred from municipal justice courts, establishes a ratio of no more than one judge per 500 municipal cases, and directs that hearings generally occur in the location closest to the municipality’s principal office unless good cause exists. The bill also repeals and reenacts provisions governing three-judge panels for constitutional challenges, establishes a filing fee for convening such panels, and creates a contingent Constitutional Court that would become operative if the current three-judge panel statute is invalidated. | We oppose this bill due to concerns regarding its potential impact on the administration of justice and the orderly functioning of Utah’s courts. The bill directs how courts assign and locate certain municipal cases, which may interfere with established case-management authority and judicial discretion. In addition, the creation of a contingent Constitutional Court structure during ongoing litigation could introduce uncertainty into constitutional adjudication and affect the stability and predictability of court procedures. |
| HB 372 – Child Welfare Changes | Rep. Karianne Lisonbee | This bill makes changes to child welfare proceedings, including requirements related to guardian ad litem (GAL) representation, expressed interest versus best interest standards, and recording of interviews involving minors. The bill requires GALs to represent the expressed interests of minors beginning at age 8 and includes provisions related to recording interviews with children and GALs. These recordings may be reviewed by the judge and could become subject to broader public accessibility requirements under related legislation. | We oppose this bill because it raises access to justice concerns and undermines the ability of minors to receive meaningful legal representation. Children aged 8 to 15 do not have the legal capacity to operate as litigants, yet the bill requires GALs to represent the child’s expressed interests rather than their best interests. This limits the ability of attorneys to exercise professional judgment and advocate effectively on behalf of vulnerable clients. Mandatory audio and video recording of interviews between children and GALs may have a chilling effect, discouraging children from speaking openly and honestly. These recordings also raise serious concerns regarding attorney-client privilege, confidentiality, and the secure storage and handling of sensitive information. Requiring attorneys to function primarily as spokespersons rather than advocates may discourage qualified attorneys from serving in these critical roles, ultimately harming children’s access to justice. |
| HB 392 2nd Substitute – District Court Amendments | Rep. Matt MacPherson | The bill would amend procedures for District Court panels by allowing parties to repeatedly disqualify or “strike” judges assigned to specially created panels and replace them with judges drawn from other judicial districts. This change would expand parties’ ability to reshape panel composition beyond existing recusal and disqualification standards. | We reaffirm our opposition to this legislation because it invites strategic filings aimed at obtaining favorable judicial outcomes instead of impartial adjudication. By enabling repeated strikes of judges and substituting panel members from other districts, the proposal risks excessive motions practice, undermines judicial efficiency, and erodes public confidence in fair and unbiased court proceedings. |
| HB 397 – Courtroom Audiovisual Modifications | Rep. Mike L. Kohler | This bill would require significant expansion of audiovisual capabilities in Utah courtrooms, carrying an estimated fiscal impact of approximately $15 million. | We oppose this bill because decisions about what occurs inside courtrooms, such as recording, broadcasting, or public access, should be guided by the judiciary, not mandated by the Legislature. We are also concerned that expanded audiovisual access could expose sensitive proceedings, including family law and divorce cases, to inappropriate viewing, potentially allowing children or the general public to witness deeply personal matters. Beyond cost, the bill raises serious access-to-justice concerns and opens a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences for privacy, due process, and the fair administration of justice. |
| HB 424 – Judicial Nomination Amendments | Rep. Jason Kyle | The bill would revise Utah’s judicial selection process by authorizing the Governor to appoint individuals to judicial vacancies even if they have not been nominated by the Judicial Nominating Commission established under Utah Constitution Article VIII, Section 8. This change would eliminate the merit-based requirement that judicial nominees come from a vetted list recommended by the independent commission. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0} | We opposes HB 424 because it undermines Utah’s constitutionally established merit-based judicial selection system. The Judicial Nominating Commission was created to ensure judges are chosen based on fitness for office rather than partisan politics, and allowing appointments outside the commission’s nominations weakens judicial independence, erodes public confidence in fair and impartial courts, and concentrates appointment power in a single branch of government. :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1} |
| HB 517 – Sensitive Materials | Rep. Ken Ivory | This bill includes provisions allowing courts to impose attorney fees on parties and their attorneys in certain legal challenges. Specifically, the bill creates a fee-shifting framework that applies to parties who challenge legislative action, including provisions affecting injunctive relief and actions brought in state or federal court. | We only oppose the portion of the bill having to do with attorneys’ fees in lines 264 to 273, which creates a punitive attorney fee structure that could deter legitimate legal challenges to legislative action. The bill imposes fees on both the party and their attorney under a prevailing party standard. Existing rules already provide safeguards against frivolous litigation, making these additional penalties unnecessary. By increasing the financial risks associated with bringing constitutional or legal challenges, particularly in sensitive or complex cases, the bill may discourage attorneys and individuals from seeking judicial review. This creates a significant chilling effect and undermines access to justice by limiting the ability of courts to serve as a check on legislative action. |
| HB 540 – Judicial Transparency, Information Access, and Transition Amendments | Rep. Logan Monson | This bill requires the Administrative Office of the Courts to provide a live audiostream of public court proceedings and to create and publish audio recordings that remain permanently available to the public online. The bill also requires the Judicial Council to establish a centralized online database for public court records and to implement judicial financial disclosure requirements. Additionally, the bill prohibits law firms from hiring a judge for two years after the judge leaves office if the firm is representing “or intends to represent” a party in litigation against a state government entity. |
As it is currently written, we oppose this bill because mandatory public livestreaming and permanent audio recordings of court proceedings risk undermining the fairness, safety, and integrity of the judicial process. Public broadcasting may intimidate witnesses, discourage participation, and expose parties, victims, and jurors to harassment or retaliation, particularly in sensitive cases. Courts must retain discretion to balance transparency with their responsibility to protect participants and ensure impartial, fact-based decision-making.
We are also concerned that the bill’s two-year prohibition on certain post-judicial employment may discourage qualified attorneys from accepting judicial appointments and unnecessarily restrict judges’ ability to return to private practice. Existing judicial ethics rules already govern conflicts of interest and protect public trust, and additional categorical restrictions risk undermining judicial recruitment without improving the administration of justice. |
| HB 600 – Utah Supreme Court Referendum Amendments | Rep. Matt MacPherson | This bill creates a process to submit certain Utah Supreme Court decisions to the voters for approval or rejection when the Court determines that a state law is unconstitutional. It establishes procedures and timelines for referring those constitutional determinations to a statewide vote. | We oppose this bill due to concerns regarding its potential impact on the administration of justice and the stability and finality of constitutional adjudication. Subjecting Supreme Court determinations of unconstitutionality to a referendum could delay resolution of constitutional disputes and create uncertainty for Utah families and businesses relying on clear and predictable court decisions. |
| HJR 005 – Proposal to Amend Utah Constitution – Judicial Nominations | Rep. Jason Kyle | This proposed constitutional amendment would change how judges are nominated in Utah. It would allow the Governor to request a list of nominees from the Judicial Nominating Commission, but also appoint any qualified candidate, even if they are not on that list. It also removes the current time limit for the Governor to make judicial appointments and eliminates the chief justice’s authority to fill a vacancy if the Governor does not act. If passed by the Legislature and approved by voters, these changes would become part of the Utah Constitution on January 1, 2027. | We strongly oppose this constitutional amendment because it fundamentally weakens Utah’s merit-based judicial selection system, which is heralded as a model for the nation. It undermines judicial independence by granting the Governor unchecked authority to bypass nominating commissions and appoint judges of the executive’s choosing. By removing existing constitutional safeguards and concentrating appointment power in a single branch, the proposal invites politicization of the judiciary, erodes public confidence in fair and impartial courts, and could expose the state to costly and protracted litigation challenging its constitutionality. |
| HJR 013 – Proposal to Amend Utah Constitution – Judicial Retention | Rep. Walt Brooks | This proposed constitutional amendment related to judicial retention will allow the Legislature to initiate a special retention election if lawmakers determine that a judge is unfit or incompetent, giving the legislative branch a direct mechanism to challenge sitting judges outside the regular retention process. | We strongly oppose this constitutional amendment because it injects the Legislature directly into the judicial retention process, threatening the separation of powers. Allowing lawmakers to trigger special retention elections based on subjective determinations of a judge’s fitness invites political retaliation, erodes public confidence in an impartial judiciary, and would likely expose the state to constitutional challenges and litigation over due process and legislative overreach. |
| HJR 21 – Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Civil Procedure | Rep. Matt MacPherson | The resolution primarily seeks to change how judges are assigned and managed in the Utah court system, specifically regarding three-judge district court panels. These panels are often convened for high-profile or high-stakes cases, such as constitutional challenges to state laws. | We oppose this resolution because it fundamentally threatens judicial independence by allowing litigants to “strike” or disqualify judges from three-judge panels without cause, a move we believe encourages strategic “judge shopping” and invites political interference into the court system. We are deeply concerned that by enshrining these changes, which mirror those in the controversial HB 392, into the state constitution, the legislature is creating a mechanism where parties can effectively reshape a panel to secure a more favorable outcome rather than an impartial adjudication. Furthermore, we believe these rules will result in excessive motions and procedural delays, clogging our court system and undermining the public’s trust that legal disputes will be decided based on facts and the law rather than political pressure or tactical maneuvering. |
| HJR 026 – Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Evidence to Address Machine-Generated Evidence | Rep. Melissa G. Ballard | HJR 026 proposes amendments to Utah’s Rules of Evidence to address the admissibility and treatment of machine-generated evidence in judicial proceedings. The resolution would modify existing evidentiary standards governing authentication and reliability determinations for outputs produced by automated systems and artificial intelligence technologies. | We oppose HJR 026 because it risks altering evidentiary standards in a manner that could compromise judicial discretion and the careful, case-by-case reliability analysis required for emerging technologies. Broad or inflexible statutory directives governing machine-generated evidence may inadvertently weaken due process protections, create uncertainty in litigation, and shift complex technical determinations away from established judicial gatekeeping functions. Any reform to evidentiary rules involving artificial intelligence and automated systems should proceed cautiously, through the judiciary’s established rulemaking process, to preserve fairness, constitutional safeguards, and the integrity of Utah’s courts. |
| SB 57 – Judicial Resources Amendments | Sen. Todd Weiler | The bill increases the number of judges within Utah’s courts to address growing caseloads. | We support this bill because expanding judicial resources is critical to maintaining an efficient and responsive court system. |
| SB 92 – Prosecution Amendments | Sen. Chris Wilson | The bill ensures that if a victim dies after a defendant has already been prosecuted for the initial assault, the state can still bring homicide charges without violating the rule against being tried twice for the same crime. | We, alongside both defense and prosecution stakeholders, oppose this bill because it fundamentally weakens the rules of “legal finality” that protect Utahns from being prosecuted multiple times for the same conduct. Specifically, the bill would allow for additional charges to be filed even if the sentence for the original crime has already been completed, creating a system of permanent legal uncertainty. This shift would make the legal process significantly longer and more expensive, placing an undue burden on those who cannot afford a lawyer or must represent themselves. From an access to justice standpoint, the Bar supports stable legal protections that ensure cases have a clear ending, whereas SB 92 risks undermining fairness by allowing the state to reopen the past even after a person has fully satisfied their debt to society. |
| SB 134 – Appellate Court Amendments | Sen. Chris Wilson | This bill proposes judicial court amendments that would expand Utah’s appellate courts by increasing the number of judges on both the Utah Supreme Court (from five to seven justices) and the Utah Court of Appeals (from seven to nine judges). It also includes provisions to add additional district court judges in several counties to help address growing caseloads across the state’s judiciary. | We generally support this bill for its recognition of growing judicial caseloads and its investment in expanding the courts, particularly at the trial and appellate levels, where most Utahns interact with the justice system. However, the Bar opposes the addition of two Supreme Court justices, given that the vast majority of cases involving everyday citizens are handled in lower courts, and the bill does not adequately address the need for corresponding support staff, such as judicial assistants and law clerks, necessary to ensure that new judges can operate effectively and efficiently. |
| SB 182 – Attorney Admission to Jail Facilities Amendments | Sen. Stephanie Pitcher | The bill amends statutes governing attorney access to jail facilities to clarify when and how attorneys may meet with incarcerated clients. It establishes consistent statewide standards to ensure timely and reliable access to counsel within detention facilities. | We support this bill because it enhances access to justice by ensuring attorneys can meet with incarcerated clients during regular hours and arrange for meetings outside of regular business hours when necessary. The bill appropriately requires sheriffs to provide safe and private meeting spaces, reinforcing the attorney-client relationship and protecting constitutional rights. |
| SB 233 – Judicial Performance Evaluation Amendments | Sen. Brady Brammer | This bill proposes changes to the judicial performance evaluation process, altering how judges are reviewed and how that information may be used in retention decisions. | We oppose this bill because, when considered as part of the larger legislative package, it increases political influence over judges by shifting evaluations toward subjective criteria that could be wielded as a tool for political retaliation rather than impartial assessment. By restructuring judicial performance evaluations without meaningful input from judges, court administrators, or legal professionals, the bill dismantles critical merit-based safeguards and threatens public confidence in an impartial judiciary. |
| SJR 5 – Constitutional Amendment — District Court Panels | Sen. Todd Weiler | The resolution proposes a constitutional amendment altering how District Court panels are formed and how judges may be reassigned or replaced. Like HB 392 and HJR 21, it includes overlapping language and concepts that would expand parties’ ability to strike and substitute judges on specially created panels and allow reassignment of judges from other districts beyond current constitutional and statutory norms. | We oppose this resolution because it would embed in the Utah Constitution procedural changes similar to those in HB 392 that risk strategic manipulation of judicial panels. By institutionalizing broader judge strike and reassignment mechanisms, the resolution threatens to burden judicial resources, undermine impartial adjudication, and erode public confidence in the fairness and independence of the judiciary. |
| SJR 6 – Joint Resolution Amending Court Rules | Sen. Kirk Cullimore | This joint resolution proposes amendments to the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure related to the adjudication of certain constitutional claims and is intended to operate in conjunction with HB 366. The resolution modifies court procedures governing how constitutional challenges to state laws are processed and coordinated within Utah’s courts. | We oppose this resolution due to concerns regarding its potential impact on the administration of justice and the stability of court procedures. Because the resolution modifies court rules related to constitutional litigation and operates in conjunction with HB 366 S01, it may introduce uncertainty into the adjudication of constitutional claims and affect the orderly functioning of the courts. |
| SJR 008 – Joint Resolution to Initiate a Law School at Utah Valley University | Sen. Brandy Brammer | SJR 008 proposes directing a feasibility study and related planning efforts to explore the establishment of a law school at Utah Valley University. The resolution seeks to assess educational demand, resource requirements, and institutional needs associated with launching a new public law program in the state. | We support SJR 008’s initiative to commission a comprehensive feasibility study for a law school at Utah Valley University and welcome the opportunity to participate as a resource throughout this process. Conducting a thorough, evidence-based examination of potential models, costs, and impacts will help inform policymakers, educators, and the public as they consider options for expanding legal education in Utah. Collaboration among stakeholders during the study phase can ensure that any future recommendations reflect broad input, uphold academic rigor, and serve the long-term interests of students and the legal profession. |
How to contact your legislators
- Visit the Utah Legislature website → Legislators → Find by Address/Map to locate your Senator and Representative and their contact information.
- Utah Senate: 801-538-1035 (Senate Roster online)
- Utah House: 801-538-1029 (House Roster online)
PRESS RELEASE – Package of Bills Would Remake Utah’s Judicial System