- Utah lawmakers advanced a bill to increase the size of the Supreme Court, saying it will improve efficiency.
- Critics argue the move could be seen as court packing amid political tensions with the judicial system.
- The bill, SB134, passed committee 8-1 and now awaits full Senate consideration.
SALT LAKE CITY — Utah lawmakers are moving ahead with a plan to add an additional two justices to the state Supreme Court, though some Republicans still question whether the move will have the desired effect of improving the court's efficiency.
Critics, meanwhile, suggest the move is an effort to pack the high court or to retaliate following several rulings that have angered Republicans on Capitol Hill and heightened tensions between the two branches of government.
It's been more than a century since Utah last changed the number of Supreme Court justices, during which time the population has increased more than sevenfold. Senate Majority Whip Chris Wilson, R-Logan, is now proposing adding an additional two justices to the five-member court, saying it will help the court stay on top of the growing number of cases that end up there.
"I think we owe it to our citizens to make sure that their cases are heard as quickly as possible," he told the Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee on Thursday. "There's nothing like having a court case hanging over your head as you're trying to go about life."
Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, an attorney who serves as chairman of the committee, dismissed concerns that the changes are in response to recent decisions on redistricting that have caused some Republicans to criticize the judiciary, saying he floated the idea of expanding the court several years ago.
"Before any of the current tensions arose, this was something that I was publicly exploring," he said.
Several public commenters agreed with portions of the bill adding appeals court justices and a change made by the committee that would also add three lower court judges, but nearly all who spoke during the lengthy committee hearing expressed concern about adding Supreme Court justices — at least while tensions persist.
"We can't look at this bill in isolation; we need to look at all of the attacks on the judiciary and we really need to have an independent judiciary for our government to function," said Teneille Brown, a lawyer and associate dean of the University of Utah's S.J. Quinney College of Law, who spoke on behalf of herself.
Retired law professor Linda Smith said the bill "risks having the public think this is court packing, even if that is not the motivation."
"It does not add credibility to either the courts or to this body," she added.
Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, previously said lawmakers are "extremely concerned" with a ruling from 3rd District Judge Dianna Gibson, which reinstated the anti-gerrymandering ballot initiative known as Proposition 4 and threw out the congressional maps approved by the Legislature after the 2020 census. He suggested that judges be elected rather than appointed by the governor in light of rulings lawmakers have disagreed with, during a KSL and Deseret News editorial board meeting earlier this month.
"I've got a lot of respect for our judiciary," the speaker said. "But look, you've heard us talk about electing judges. That's not off the table, you know, especially our Supreme Court. If those are the types of decisions that are going to be made ... if we can't figure this out, then we need to have a serious discussion about electing judges."
But even if expanding the court is the right policy, at least one Republican had some reservations and wouldn't commit to supporting the bill when it reaches the Senate floor.
"If you remove the current climate we're in, if you just looked at this purely as a policy, and we could do that in a vacuum ... I'm leaning toward that," said Sen. Calvin Musselman, R-West Haven. "But, we're not in a vacuum. ... There's this atmosphere out there that makes it difficult."
Musselman also questioned whether adding judges would actually result in a more efficient court and suggested lawmakers consider more "outside the box" proposals.
Sen. Stephanie Pitcher, D-Salt Lake City, asked if expanding the high court would help with backlogs in the court system, and suggested lawmakers should fund the request from the court for more lower-level judges.
"We have our own caseload issues," she said of the hundreds of bills already introduced in the 45-day legislative session, "and I don't know that any of us feel that adding additional legislators would address that problem."
All Republicans on the committee ultimately voted for the bill, with Weiler saying it was the right move, regardless of the political climate.
"If anybody asks whether it was a mistake to expand from five to seven in 2026, I think 20 years from now, people will say, 'No, that was a smart thing to do.'"
During his State of the Judiciary address to lawmakers on Tuesday, Durrant acknowledged that lawmakers have the power to change the number of justices on the high court but asked that they "not do it at the expense of the judicial positions we have prioritized" given that the "need for additional judges is much greater in our lower courts."
Durrant asked lawmakers for money to hire an additional eight district court judges and one to two appellate court justices.
The cost of adding a new justice position to the appellate courts is close to $500,000, Weiler said, including staff salaries and benefits.
Retired Judge David Connors suggested that money be spent on lower court judges, who share staff and who have a greater need for help.
"I see the amount of money that would be spent to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court as probably the least effective way to give some assistance to the judiciary right now," he said. "Much more effective would be to take that money and add additional district court judges to those that you've already agreed to add."
Republican Sen. Heidi Balderree, of Saratoga Springs, questioned why the Supreme Court is asking for more lower court judges, not for more justices.
"I would say let's look to history. History teaches us that institutions almost never volunteer to limit or share their own power unless legitimacy, public trust or long-term stability is at stake," she said. "The lesson is clear that sharing authority is how institutions preserve credibility, not lose it."
Lawmakers are gearing up to consider a constitutional amendment that would give them power to overturn or alter citizen-led ballot initiatives, something critics say chips away at the peoples' power to pass laws on their own.
Wilson's bill, SB134, was endorsed by the governor and legislative leaders ahead of the legislative session and was expected to move through the Senate and House early in the session, which began Tuesday. The bill originally would have added two Supreme Court justices and increased the number of justices on the appeals court from seven to nine.
It was amended in committee to also add one additional district court judge each in Salt Lake, Utah and Washington counties, after Durrant asked lawmakers to funnel more resources to the lower courts.
It ultimately passed 8-1 with Senate Minority Leader Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City, joining with all Republicans in voting for it. Pitcher cast the lone dissenting vote.
SB134 now moves to the full Senate for consideration.
