Listen to the article
Utah’s Governor Cox signed legislation Saturday expanding the state’s Supreme Court from five to seven justices, amid growing tensions between Republican lawmakers and the judiciary over recent court decisions.
The bill, which took immediate effect after receiving more than two-thirds support in the legislature, comes at a politically sensitive moment. Just last week, Utah’s Legislature asked the court to overturn a redistricting ruling that could potentially help Democrats win one of Utah’s four congressional seats this fall.
Republican sponsors of the expansion claimed it would enhance the court’s efficiency, with House Majority Leader Casey Snider arguing that “seven sets of eyes reviewing the most complex and difficult issues our state has ever faced is better than having only five sets of eyes.”
However, the state’s judiciary did not request additional justices, and legal experts have expressed concerns about both the timing and rationale. John Pearce, recently retired as associate chief justice, directly contradicted the efficiency argument.
“The more sets of comments you have to take into account, the longer the process takes,” Pearce said earlier this month. “If what the Legislature is hoping to do is speed up the work of the court, it’s going to be counterproductive.”
Utah’s Democratic lawmakers have unanimously opposed the measure, questioning the suspicious timing given the pending redistricting case. Critics view the expansion as potentially undermining judicial independence at a time of heightened friction between government branches.
In Utah’s system, the governor appoints Supreme Court justices with state Senate approval, rather than through public elections as in many other states. Once Governor Cox fills the two new positions, he will have appointed a majority—five of seven—of the sitting justices.
This court expansion follows another significant change last month when Republican lawmakers stripped the Utah Supreme Court justices of their traditional authority to select their own chief justice, transferring that power to the governor instead.
While most states have either five or seven Supreme Court justices, with a few maintaining nine, the justification that this change aligns Utah with similarly sized states hasn’t quelled concerns about political motivation. Governor Cox has denied political intent, noting that Republican governors and senators have made all recent judicial appointments.
Two other states—Arizona and Georgia—have expanded their supreme courts in the past decade using similar efficiency arguments. However, the results have been mixed. In Arizona, which grew its court in 2016, several justices initially reported decreased efficiency as more people needed to review opinions before publication. Data shows Arizona now issues slightly more rulings annually, while Georgia issues fewer than before its expansion.
Utah Chief Justice Matthew Durrant had previously informed legislators that the Supreme Court had “essentially no backlog” and had instead urged them to focus resources on lower courts where judicial needs are more pressing. In response, lawmakers did include provisions for some additional lower court judges and clerks in the expansion bill.
The court expansion is part of a broader pattern of legislation that has alarmed the Utah State Bar, which has expressed concerns about judicial independence. Another proposal would create a specialized trial court with exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional challenges, limiting other judges’ ability to block potentially unconstitutional state laws through injunctions.
Additionally, Republicans are gathering signatures for a November ballot initiative that would restore their ability to draw voting districts that deliberately favor their party, a practice known as gerrymandering.
The rapid implementation of these changes has raised questions about the separation of powers in Utah’s government and whether political considerations are influencing structural changes to the judiciary.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
13 Comments
This is an intriguing development in Utah politics. Expanding the state Supreme Court could have significant implications, both in terms of the court’s efficiency and its ability to remain impartial, especially with the looming redistricting case. I’ll be following this story closely to see how it unfolds.
You make a good point. The court’s independence and impartiality will be crucial in handling the redistricting appeal. The political dynamics here are quite complex.
Hmm, this seems like a pretty significant change to the state’s highest court. I’m not sure I buy the efficiency argument, as the retired justice pointed out. Expanding the court could actually slow things down. This feels more like a political power play ahead of the redistricting case.
I agree, the timing is quite suspicious. Expanding the court right before a major political case raises concerns about the governor’s true intentions.
The Utah governor’s move to expand the Supreme Court raises some red flags. Ostensibly about efficiency, the timing in relation to the redistricting appeal suggests political motivations. I hope the court is able to maintain its independence and make fair, impartial decisions.
Interesting move by the Utah governor. Expanding the state Supreme Court could certainly impact the upcoming redistricting appeal, though the stated rationale of improving efficiency is debatable. I’ll be curious to see how this plays out.
The timing does seem questionable, with the redistricting case looming. Hopefully the court can remain impartial despite the political pressures.
It will be important to closely monitor how this Supreme Court expansion impacts the upcoming redistricting appeal in Utah. Ensuring the judiciary remains independent and impartial is critical, regardless of the motivations behind the legislative changes.
Adding more justices to the state Supreme Court is a big change. I wonder if it will actually lead to quicker decisions, as the governor claims, or if it could slow things down with more voices weighing in. Redistricting battles can get heated, so this is an important issue to watch.
You raise a good point. Expanding the court could cut both ways in terms of efficiency. It will be interesting to see how it affects the redistricting case and other future rulings.
The expansion of Utah’s Supreme Court is certainly a controversial decision. While the stated goal of improving efficiency is understandable, the political context around the upcoming redistricting appeal makes the timing questionable. Hopefully the court can remain objective and uphold the rule of law.
Interesting development in Utah politics. Adding more justices to the state Supreme Court is a bold move, and I’m curious to see if it really does improve efficiency as claimed, or if it’s more about shaping the court ahead of the redistricting case. Separation of powers is important here.
I agree, the timing is quite suspicious and raises concerns about potential political motivations. The court needs to maintain its independence and make fair, impartial decisions.