Estimated read time: 4-5 minutes
- Utah Gov. Spencer Cox vetoed a bill granting him power to select the chief justice of the Utah Supreme Court.
- SB296, seen as retribution for past rulings, faced criticism for undermining checks and balances.
- Legislative leaders hinted that they might pursue a special legislative session to override the veto.
SALT LAKE CITY — Utah Gov. Spencer Cox vetoed a high-profile judicial reform bill Tuesday that would have given him power to pick the chief justice of the state Supreme Court.
The bill, SB296, was one of several attempts to remake the state's court system during the recent legislative session — an effort seen by many, including some of the justices themselves, as "retribution" after the state's high court ruled against Republican lawmakers in a pair of cases last summer.
The five justices of the Supreme Court are currently tasked with electing one of their peers to serve as chief justice; SB296 would have given that power to the governor and make the chief justice subject to reconfirmation votes every four years. The bill was sponsored by members of GOP leadership in both the House and Senate, and the chief sponsor argued the bill allows for more public input throughout the process.
Critics, however, said it would make the Supreme Court wary of opposing the governor or Legislature, weakening the traditional checks and balances in the system.
In his letter to top GOP lawmakers explaining his decision to veto SB296, Cox wrote that the founders aimed to "protect the judiciary from democratic politics as a way of guarding them from both branches of government" and quoted conservative U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas as saying: "It is this ability to render judgement without concern for anything but the law, that should distinguish judges from members of the legislature or the executive branch."
Although lawmakers portrayed the bill as something that would bring Utah's process in line with the federal process where the president picks the chief justice, Cox noted that the provision requiring reconfirmation every four years does not exist with U.S. justices — who serve for life.
"However, this bill takes a very meaningful and problematic additional step: requiring the appointment process to occur every four years," the governor wrote.
"It is 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," he added. "I also recognize that refusing power is not en vogue these days and may be seen as weakness. But just because I can, doesn't mean I should. And while I appreciate your faith and trust in extending me this new authority, I must respectfully decline."
SB296 was the designated survivor among many controversial bills many perceived as pushing back against the judiciary when lawmakers announced a compromise with the courts during the last week of the session. As part of the agreement, lawmakers abandoned several other proposals, while the Utah Bar Association and courts took neutral positions on SB296.
In a joint statement to KSL.com, Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, and Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, bristled at the veto and hinted they might pursue a special legislative session to override it.
"This veto undermines that good-faith compromise, and we will work with our chambers to determine the best path forward," they 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."
The statement defended the bill as within the Legislature's purview to "establish the process for selecting the chief justice," and argued that the bill would remove "internal court politics from judicial decision-making," which they said "ensures rulings are based solely on the law rather than justices' leadership considerations."
The Utah State Bar released a statement commending the governor's veto, saying the state's legal system depends on a judiciary that is impartial, independent and free from "undue political influence."
"Gov. Cox's decision to veto SB296 demonstrates a thoughtful exercise of executive restraint and a deep respect for the constitutional principles that underpin our democratic system," said Bar Executive Director Elizabeth Wright. "By rejecting this bill, the governor has affirmed the importance of an independent judiciary and preserved the checks and balances that are essential to good governance."
"We commend Gov. Cox for his commitment to upholding the rule of law and for recognizing that the separation of powers is not merely a legal doctrine, but a vital safeguard for the rights and liberties of all Utahns," Wright said.
