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 several positions on the following bills:
UPDATED 2-4-2026
| Bill | Sponsor | Bill Summary | Basis for Support or Opposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 – Judicial Cases Distribution Amendments | Rep. Jordan Teuscher | This bill makes changes to how district court cases involving municipalities are assigned and managed. It updates terms in current law and procedures for the distribution of certain cases filed, appealed, or transferred from municipal justice courts to district courts, along with related technical corrections. | We oppose this bill because it interferes with the administration of justice by directing courts how to assign and prioritize cases. It disrupts established court management practices, burdens district courts with justice court infractions and misdemeanors alongside serious felony cases and raises serious constitutional concerns regarding judicial independence. |
| HB 392 – Constitutional Court Amendments | Rep. Matt MacPherson | This bill creates a new statewide Constitutional Court composed of three judges that would operate as a trial court with jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to state law. Judges would be drawn from existing district court and appellate court judges and serve six-year terms, though the bill raises questions about whether those judges would be subject to a new nomination and confirmation process. It also allows the Governor and Legislature to appoint judges who may later hear cases involving those same branches. | We oppose this bill because it raises serious concerns about judicial independence by allowing the executive and legislative branches to appoint judges who may later hear cases involving those same branches. This bill fundamentally restructures how constitutional challenges to Utah laws are handled by centralizing them in a new, statewide trial court and limiting the ability of individual judges or local courts to block state laws through injunctions. The bill also diverts taxpayer dollars and limited judicial resources to create a new court structure that is unnecessary and risks undermining public confidence in the judiciary. |
| 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 opposes 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. |
| 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. |
| 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 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. |
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