Saturday marked a pivotal moment for Utah’s judiciary as Gov. Spencer Cox signed a bill to increase the state Supreme Court from five to seven justices.
On that day, Cox enacted legislation that took immediate effect due to overwhelming legislative support, bypassing the usual waiting period. This expansion comes as Republican lawmakers express mounting frustration over recent court losses, while the Utah Supreme Court prepares to rule on a critical redistricting case that could impact one of the state’s four Republican-held congressional seats. The new law allows the governor to appoint additional justices promptly, with state Senate approval, potentially influencing the court’s composition before the map decision.
The move has ignited debate across Utah’s political spectrum. While supporters tout efficiency gains, opponents question the timing and long-term implications for judicial independence. Democrats, united in opposition, find the timing particularly suspect given the looming redistricting ruling.
Last month, Republican lawmakers stripped Supreme Court justices of their ability to choose their own chief justice, handing that authority to the governor. This, coupled with the court expansion, signals a broader push to reshape the judiciary, as ABC News reports.
Republican advocates argue that adding justices will streamline the court’s workload. House Majority Leader Casey Snider declared, “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.” But is more always better when it comes to deliberating justice?
The efficiency claim doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Legal experts warn that expanding the bench could slow down decisions as more opinions must be reconciled. Retired Associate Chief Justice John Pearce noted, “The more sets of comments you have to take into account, the longer the process takes.”
Experiences in Arizona and Georgia, where courts expanded in the past decade under similar efficiency arguments, paint a mixed picture. Arizona’s court saw a temporary dip in efficiency before issuing slightly more rulings annually, while Georgia’s output dropped a bit. These examples suggest Utah’s experiment may not deliver the promised speed.
Chief Justice Matthew Durrant also pushed back, stating the court has “essentially no backlog.” He urged lawmakers to focus on understaffed lower courts instead, a request partially met with additional judges and clerks. Yet, the Supreme Court expansion barreled ahead despite the judiciary’s lack of request for more justices.
The Utah State Bar has voiced alarm over this and other proposals, like a new trial court for constitutional challenges that could limit injunctions against questionable state laws. Such moves risk tilting the balance between government branches. Are these reforms about efficiency, or control?
The timing of the expansion raises eyebrows, especially as the court gears up to decide the fate of Utah’s congressional map. Last week, the Legislature asked the court to reverse a redistricting ruling that could favor Democrats in securing a congressional seat. New justices appointed by Cox might be seated in time to weigh in.
Cox, a Republican, insists the expansion isn’t politically driven, pointing out that recent appointments have all been under Republican governors and senators. Once the new seats are filled, he will have named five of the seven justices. That’s a hefty influence, regardless of intent.
Democrats aren’t buying the apolitical stance, and neither should the public. With Republicans also gathering signatures for a November ballot initiative to restore their ability to draw voting districts favoring their party, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
Most states operate with five or seven Supreme Court justices, and Cox argues this aligns Utah with peers of similar size. Yet, unlike many states where justices are elected, Utah’s appointment system concentrates power in the governor’s hands. That’s a stark contrast worth pondering.
The broader context reveals a Legislature frustrated by judicial checks on its agenda. While it’s understandable to seek a system that moves faster, reshaping the court during a high-stakes redistricting fight feels like a power play. Utahns deserve an independent judiciary, not a pawn in political chess.
Ultimately, the expansion may redefine Utah’s judicial landscape for years to come. Efficiency is a noble goal, but not at the expense of fairness or balance. As this unfolds, the state must prioritize trust in its institutions over short-term partisan wins.
