H.B. 392 District Court Amendments

What this bill does

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see what your own representative and senator did on this bill.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording.

Take action

This bill's session is over, but your legislators still want to hear from you. Ideas that died often come back next year.

Enter your address to get your legislators' contact information and a ready-to-send message about this bill.

Every vote

• 7 yes, 2 no, 2 absentHouse Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee: vote to approve it · Jan 28, 2026Who voted how
• 56 yes, 15 no, 4 absentFinal House vote · Feb 4, 2026Who voted how
• 4 yes, 1 no, 2 absentSenate Revenue and Taxation Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 5, 2026Who voted how
• 21 yes, 7 no, 1 absentFirst of two Senate votes · Feb 11, 2026Who voted how
• 22 yes, 7 noFinal Senate vote · Feb 12, 2026Who voted how
• 55 yes, 16 no, 4 absentHouse vote to accept the other chamber's changes · Feb 13, 2026Who voted how

Hearings and debates

• Jan 28, 2026 House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (61 turns)

  1. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:00:28

     Constitutional Court Amendments. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry, I thought I had one more in front of me. You Did, but she's not here. Um, Lacey or did someone get, uh, my slides? Oh, you got 'em. Okay. And thank you members of the committee and Mr. Chair for the opportunity to present this. Um, so this bill, um, is something that we've been working on for some time now, all through, um, well, me and several other individuals who've been working on this, uh, through interim and, uh, into this year. And there's been some good discussion over how can we improve the, um, resources that we have available to the courts so we can get to some of our cases more quickly, that we can improve the workload in the areas where it's most, uh, needed, especially at the district and trial court level. And how can we ensure that we can try to solve some of the, uh, concerns and trust issues that revolve between the public, the legislature, and the judiciary. And this bill, um, basically evolved from those conversations and from those discussions. So if we can get, once that slide is up, I'll let you know the, we'll start sounds like I got just a minute. We will go through quickly what the bill actually does. Sure. And then, um, if it's appropriate, my, uh, intern has a list of maybe some, uh, FAQs, um, walks through some additional information if he could pass that out. If, if you would. Uh, We Also have been known to saunter if needed. Well, we'll, we'll see how our tech Okay. If not, I have it here and I can start talking through the, uh, the details. So I'll get started. And if we can get these up later so you can view them, that'd be great. So what this, what this bill does it, first of all, it establishes a constitutional court, which is a three judge, uh, panel court that sit at the trial level. They will have exclusive statewide jurisdiction over cases that bring facial challenges against state laws. And as far as procedurally, one judge will rule on all the standard procedural motions, but injunctions, trials and opinions, anything substantive will be handled as a panel. The selection process is the normal selection process. The judges would be vetted by the nominating commission selected by the governor, and then would be confirmed by the Senate. There is some language in the bill that tries to give preference to our existing, uh, district court judges. Um, we can't exclude the constitution, uh, identifies who qualifies to be a judge in the state of Utah, and we're not going to ex exclude anyone from applying. But there is some preference, uh, giving to existing, uh, district court judges. Um, a sitting district court or court of appeals judge would keep their existing, um, workload in their, uh, jurisdiction. So if they're a district court judge, they would maintain a district, uh, workload that would be reduced by the court. When it comes to retention, there would be separate retentions. Um, if you are a district court judge and you have a retention schedule, it's three years after your first, uh, when you've been appointed. And then every six years after, if you are then, uh, simultaneously serving on the constitutional court, you'd have a separate, uh, retention election. This would be a statewide election because this is a statewide court. Um, and those would have the same schedule three years after the initial appointment, and then every six years after that. Oh, I see. We have it up. Do you mind going to slide five? So if we look at some precedents in, uh, other areas. So the US government typically in our, uh, federal courts, they establish these three judge panels, uh, can, uh, pretty often on specialized issues, um, especially on redistricting and other types of cases. And this has been going on for over a hundred years. Um, several other states like North Carolina and Tennessee would probably be the closest, um, to this. They establish an ad hoc commission of three judges that organize into a panel to hear all of these, uh, facial challenges. Uh, whereas Wisconsin does it only for redistricting, uh, cases. And I would point out in all three of these states, um, they're able to do this because their state constitution allows their legislature to organize, um, and set jurisdictions of their courts in this manner. Whereas the Utah constitution only allows, um, the legislature to establish courts in order to, uh, meet this same requirement. So we're effectively doing the same thing that these other states have, but just in alignment with our state constitution. If we could go to the next slide, please. So this also builds on our past efforts. We've already done some specialization in our courts. We have our drug courts, um, we have our most recently our business and chancery court that also has exclusive jurisdiction in this area. And they focus on, um, specifically these issues on the business side. And that jurisdiction is exclusive to this court, and it does create a specialization there. Um, this, this, uh, process on centralizing these claims will help the judges in this case, um, or in these matters, become much more specialized over time. And this is important for the entire state of Utah. We want, there's a, there's a perhaps a benefit, and if you talk to the courts, they will freely state that most of our district court judges don't like having these cases. There's a lot of pressure, there's a lot of eyes on them. This would create a constitutional court that is, um, that for most of our judges have an opportunity to apply to. In fact, we've made incentives to make them, uh, want to apply to these, uh, cases or to the, to this court. But the specialization and the ability to keep them centralized in this pa uh, space will allow these cases to move much more quickly. They won't get bogged down by the fact that these district court judges already have an extremely high workload. In fact, if you talk to the courts, the highest workload right now is at the district level. And in order to try to ease some of that burden, this specialized court can take some of that workload off of them and essentially ascend this to a specialized court. The other, uh, aspect of this, and you can see in the fiscal note that was released, um, is that this would, uh, authorize three additional judges to the district court to backfill the expectation on how are these positions are filled. There is some discrepancy on perhaps how that may happen because you could have a judge apply to this role that is not currently a district court judge. You could have current judges that apply. So depending on how that works out may affect, uh, how this is funded. But this will lead to the consistent and faster decision making in this court, which is the most important. We need these issues of a statewide significance to not get bogged down by the court process. It leads to, uh, unintended consequences, which we have seen in recent cases. Um, and I, I believe that's the last slide I have here. So I will say also, and I, I passed out a, a sheet, uh, to the committee at least that you can view some of the frequently asked questions. Um, something to keep in mind. We, we have, this is not a new concept. Again, the other states that have done this, even if you were to consider the fact that we're not creating an ad, excuse me, an ad hoc court in this case, there are 27 states that have established, um, exclusive jurisdiction courts in just the business side. There are a number of states that have identified exclusive jurisdiction courts on matters related to, um, cases where there is some sort of monetary claim against the state. Um, so there is a, there is a, a long precedence of many states using these types of specialized courts to improve the process. Take some of the load off of the lower courts, still insulate the Supreme Court from having to hear these cases directly, um, and allow, uh, the process to function, um, in the most appropriate way for the people so they can get these statewide urgent, uh, matters answered quickly. With that, I'm open to any questions, uh, and discussion. I I, I actually, I wanna put out maybe one last thing. Um, I did speak, um, and they gave me permission to share. I spoke at length with the League of Cities and Towns. Um, because a lot of these issues, especially those of statewide significance, have a great impact in our municipalities and our counties, for example, in the redistricting case. And they have reviewed this at great length and, and have authorized me to share that they have no concerns with the bill. Thank you.

  2. Committee chair1:10:06

     Thank you. I'm go ahead and turn to the committee for clarifying questions.

  3. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:10:11

     Uh, Representative Stoddard. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so I'm a little bit unclear as to the appellate procedure past this court. Can you run through that? Is it like a traditional appeal from a district court that'll go to court of appeals and then the Supreme Court? Is there some sort of fast track? Um, Jacqueline, are you here?

  4. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:10:31

     She is actually, I'll have her come Up because this is something that we've, we've talked about before and I just wanna make sure that we've got the current version. Yes, It'll follow the current appeals process for other court, for other trial courts. So this is like, just funny,

  5. Jacqueline Carlton, Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel1:10:46

     but, um, I need Jacqueline to introduce yourself and all That. Oh, I'm sorry. That's, I'm Jacqueline Carlton. I am an attorney with Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel.

  6. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:10:54

     Thank you. And thank you Mr. Chair. May I ask a different question, I suppose? Um, so I know we've had a lot of discussions about the backlog in the courts. I I know that will partially come up in another bill, but I know that other bill's looking at funding three different district court judges. I mean, I would say that most of us here want judges that are well-rounded and can handle any matters. You look at the district court judges, we have that, you know, toggle between civil and criminal calendars. Um, why this versus just using this fiscal note to fund more district court judges to reduce the caseload there?

  7. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:11:33

     Yeah, I appreciate the question. I think it's important too because the, um, there's a, I guess a couple of policy considerations on that question. And, and one is, is that the workload of this ca of this court will actually be pretty low. And the bill outlines that they're gonna function, um, day to day primarily as district court judges. And that'll come through the temporary assignment, um, process that the court can establish right now. So they can be assigned a temporary workload of district court cases pretty much year round. And then their, but their, their primary and ultimate goal is to work on the constitutional cases when they come up and there may be some calendar scheduling issues. This is why we're, we've tried to make sure that one judge handles the procedural thing so that we can try to get to a point where the panel becomes fully available to, to move this along quickly. But you are right that in fact, the, the funding for this will, will actually in, in essence, actually just mostly increase the, uh, I think the estimate we we've got now is at least 90% of their times can be focused on district court issues. So I, I think that having both the specialized court and adding to the district court, uh, from a poly policy perspective, we could just simply throw more judges into the district court and hope that that translates to, um, an increase, uh, or a, a decrease of the workload that these cases would move. But I think the court would say that I believe they asked for eight in the, uh, district court. So whether we fund three or even six, let's say under this bill, under the best circumstance, I think they would still be backed up and this may not solve that backlog issue.

  8. Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:13:14

     Can I ask a follow up question, Mr. Chair? Go ahead. I'll be quick. Thank you. Um, so now currently the, the presiding judges in each courthouse or chose chosen on a rotating basis, correct? Is that, Well, how that works specifically how the rotation and, and what the selection, I'm not sure, but I, that's what I understand.

  9. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:13:33

     Yeah. Um, couldn't there be something like this where we fund additional district court judges and then you have certain people handling the constitutional cases, so a rotating panel? Yeah, I appreciate that. Um, question and so this is actually one of the crux of the issues. So my initial version of this was to try to match more of the North Carolina model, for example, that would try to establish this more in, uh, like a panel that could be assembled. And we really ran into, uh, again, the constitutional issues is uh, is what, what limitations are placed on the legislature, on how we organize courts. So we actually have no authority to organize courts, whereas North Carolina, Tennessee do, it's written in their legis in their, um, constitution. We had floated the idea, the suggestion, perhaps we try to modify the constitution, allow the legislature to organize courts, but we felt like that that would probably be rejected generally by the public. Um, and I think that that's probably not the best way to pursue this. So we are trying to align the policy in the idea and the concept of having, um, specialized, uh, judges, um, because that's a policy decision. But at the same time, yeah, there, there's an argument to be made on could we do a method that would allow an ad hoc method currently under the constitution, the legislature can't do that. That's, that's been our biggest hold up on that. Thank you.

  10. Committee chair1:15:02

      Thank you representative. Any further questions from clarifying questions from the committee?

  11. Unknown speaker1:15:12speaker not certain

      And I'll, I'll just say probably save some money, right? If we went that route, if we figured out a way to do that.

  12. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:15:17

      Oh, absolutely. But, and Mr. Chair, if you don't mind, go ahead. I, the money is actually a significant portion of this, and I actually hope that when we discuss this issue, there is a funding mechanism of this or there, there is a fiscal note on here that reflects the idea of adding a full court with judges and staff. And this is, this is something that is desperately needed right now for our courts. So I, I I wanna emphasize that this is a huge boon, um, to our judicial system. Even though there may be concerns over how this policy may play out or what may be some optics might be. The bottom line is from a policy perspective, this is the right decision to make as far as policy. And this will improve overall the relationship between the courts, the people, the legislature will move these case quicker, will provide more resources to the court. Thank you. I don't see any further questions from the committee, so we'll turn to the public for comment. Is there anyone here to speak to this particular bill?

  13. Committee chair1:16:23

      Okay, keep your hands up high. I've got 1, 2, 3. Well keep 'em up if you're gonna do it. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14. Okay, we'll do seven and seven. Split 'em up side by side and we'll go. I don't care who comes up first, but whoever wants to go first, now's the time. What was that? I don't think so.

  14. Kristy Kimball, resident1:16:51

      My name is Kristy Kimball, I'm a resident of Salt Lake City. I'm also an attorney. Goodness. Um, first of all, I'd like to point out there was just some talk about desperately wanting to help the courts given the resources that they need. Um, to be clear, I'm here to speak in opposition to this bill, but getting back to your comments that you're desperately trying to help the courts give them the resources that they need, the courts, Sorry to, to clarify to whose comments? Excuse Me. Said you are to get back to, to your, To Mr. Sorry. Representative MacPherson. Okay. So, so the comment is to the chair, to the yes here. And so make just however you direct that. So again, there was talk about you wanting to do what the courts need so that they can do a better job, be more efficient. The courts have a way of telling the legislature what it is that they need, and they have told you that, and it's through very specific in-depth studies that they have. And through the appropriations, the legislature keeps reducing what they need. They will not give the courts what they need. They've asked for more legal assistance, for more law clerks, for more legal secretaries. And if the public knew where to look and we could guide them to that, we'll see that the legislature keeps cutting what they say that they need drastically in some cases. So if you care about the courts and having them be more efficient, then give them what they're asking for. The second thing, um, I'd like to say is that it was interesting when Representative MacPherson pointed out very clearly that this bill has been being discussed and drafted and created for months, but instead of le listing the bill, um, giving some notice to people that might want to know about it, you dropped it as a surprise yesterday is when this bill was dropped, you set it for a committee that has nothing to do really with the judiciary a day later. Alright.

  15. Committee chair1:18:54

      Okay, we're gonna, we're gonna pause. So one of the rules is that we don't impede the character or intent. I intent, I Didn't characterize anything. I'm telling you what's happened, I'm speaking at the moment. So, um, you don't refer to me as the chair we're, if we're referring to another legislator, then we can refer to that person by name, but it doesn't, you don't speak to me as if I'm the legislature in your comments either. So, Well, Representative Monson, let's keep right.

  16. Kristy Kimball, resident1:19:25

      Thank you. This is what was stated, and I'm saying clearly this bill has been worked on for months and yet it was dropped yesterday and set for a committee hearing. In a committee hearing that has nothing to do with the legislature, that doesn't give voters or interested parties even enough time to possibly understand what's in this bill, let alone come and have the time to speak to you. That being said, um, from the beginning, this bill is not just another court restructuring proposal. It is an unprecedented attempt to control cons constitutional review itself. For years, the legislature has adopted rules that make it easier to act without oversight, harder for voters to respond and more difficult for the public to understand what is happening until it is already done. This law is the logical next step when lawmakers are unhappy and with constitutional rulings, this bill gives them a way to change the forum, redirect cases, and shape the process by which their own laws are reviewed and decided. That is not a separation of powers, that is power protecting itself. Constitutional rights mean nothing. If the government can decide which courts hear a challenge, which judges decided, and whether a case remains in the ordinary judicial system at all. This bill turns judicial review into a moving target, one that shifts whenever enforcement of the constitution becomes inconvenient. You are not reforming the courts, you are attempting to rig them as attorneys from across the political spectrum. We see exactly what is happening with all of the bills that you are running and that you have run in the last couple of years. And we are telling you plainly, this is wrong. It is dangerous, and it strikes at the heart of Utah's constitutional system. Justice is meant to be blind. HB 3 92 ensures it is not. We are asking this committee to please reject this bill. Thank you.

  17. Committee chair1:21:27

      Thank you. Typically, I don't need to interrupt, uh, a witness, so because that was the first one. Um, just so everybody understands the rules, uh, make sure you, uh, introduce yourself. Explain who you are, if you represent a particular or organization and where you're from, um, online. If you're joining us, then that means, um, you have to turn your camera on, use your real name, no Elmer FUD stuff. And, uh, you get to, to do the same thing. Um, but remember when you're speaking, you're speaking to the bill itself. You're not speaking to the entire legislature. You are in this committee. And just to, the only thing I'll say to the last, uh, witness, um, this committee hears judiciary related things all the time. This is far from the first time that Mr. Drexel has been in front of our committee. In fact, it's pretty much every week. So, uh, I think we're pretty used to the issue. Thank you. And go ahead, you're up.

  18. Michael Drechsel, Assistant State Court Administrator1:22:23

      Thank you Mr. Chair. Committee members. Uh, it's nice to be with you today. My name is Michael Drexel. I'm the assistant state court administrator at the administrative office of the courts. And I'll tell you from the get-go, we're opposed to this version of the bill and I want you to know that, but this is an important topic and it's a worthy conversation. There are questions of statewide importance that deserve to have a speedy resolution. So there can be certainty. Uh, we understand that the way in which this bill is structured, we find objectionable. And the reason for that is primarily the way in which the judges who will be hearing these cases are picked. Typically what happens is a case is filed and then that case gets assigned to judges and the parties filing the case, don't know who their judge is gonna be. In this instance, you've got a cart and a horse issue where in advance of filing a case, we're pre-selecting the judges who would adjudicate those cases. And because the subset of cases that are subject to this bill are so narrow, it will almost always involve either the legislature as a party and the governor's office as a party or some other high ranking government officials and, and, uh, you know, government body that's in essence trying to, I think, define the decision maker for that subset of cases. And giving, uh, the people who will be litigating the case on one side of the case, um, the ability to, to, to find those judges. That's not a way to establish a system that is seen as fair for by all people, because inevitably on the other side of that case will be litigants who didn't get a chance to define who those judges were that were hearing their case. I do think there's a path forward though on this, and the specific details about how to get the judicial assignment made in these cases, uh, could be something that we could collaborate on. Uh, but today in this version of the bill, we'd be opposed to it and ask that you would, uh, vote against it. Thanks,

  19. Caroline Gleich, resident1:24:19

      Chair and members of the committee. My name is Caroline Gly and I'm a locally elected official. Speaking here today in my personal capacity, I'm here to ask you to slow down and reconsider both SB 1 34 and 3 92 through the lens of accountability, trust, and honoring the will of the people. In 2020, Utah taxpayers spent about $1.2 million funding an independent redistricting commission. That commission traveled the state held public hearings and produced thoughtful good faith recommendations. And then at the midnight hour, the legislature discarded that work and adopted a gerrymandered map. Instead. That moment nearly broke my faith in government because the process told Utahans that their time, their voices and even their votes could be ignored when inconvenient. Since then, we've trusted the courts to act as a constitutional backstop when the political process failed. And now in response to those court rulings, especially on redistricting, you're proposing to restructure the courts themselves. For Republicans who believe in limited government checks and balances and fiscal restraint, this should give you pause because the precedent you set here won't just apply when you're in the majority. Expanding the Supreme Court and creating an entirely new constitutional court at significant cost and against the judiciary's stated priorities, it doesn't restore trust, it erodes it. Creating this new constitutional court in response to specific rulings, politicizes the law and creates long-term instability. Utah works best when each branch respects the other, and when lawmakers honor the will of the people, even when it's uncomfortable, if you want to rebuild trust, start there. Don't change the rules of the game because you didn't like the outcome. Thank you.

  20. Gayle Ruzika, Utah Eagle Forum1:26:22

      Gail Ika with Utah Eagle Farm, and I'm speaking in favor of this bill. We have been waiting for so long on many cases, I, it's hard to understand. I'm, I'm not a, an attorney. I'm not in the system and I can't understand why it takes two, three, sometimes five years or longer just to get an answer to something that in, in many cases there may be a law that's been passed in this state can't, but it's been, you know, on, in, on a stay. Why? Why? You know, the citizens, we talk about this all the time, why is it take so long to get an answer? Why when bills are passed and laws are put into place, is, is the law not going in effect because it's in the court system? If this is a system and it sounds like it could be, that could help speed that up, how could it not help speed it up so we can have answers and so that laws that should be in enforced can be in enforced. So I would ask you please to vote yes on this bill.

  21. Tanner Latham, resident1:27:27

      My name is Tanner Latham. I am an educator here speaking on behalf of myself. Uh, and I'm here to, uh, ask you to oppose this bill. Uh, it does sound nice from Representative MacPherson that, uh, this would just be filling a function, streamlining the judicial process and easing the court's backlogs. However, we do not live in a vacuum and understanding that there is an unspoken desire behind this bill. As the representative says, the caseload of a constitutional court would be very low, meaning the argument about streamlining is really non-existent. If the district courts are backlogged, as we know they are, the solution is to increase the number of district judges, not create an entirely new court. The role of determining constitutionality, filing injunctions and things like that is already filled by the district courts. We have as well as the State Supreme Court, and it is their role to determine these matters for the entire state already. To say that we want to insulate them from these matters would be to deny their primary function and instead put the power of determining cases into the hands of the legislature violating checks and balances. An answer was given by the highest court in the state regarding an injunction issue, and then that injunction was then supported by district judges. However, instead of supporting that, we are now looking to change the way that the court systems work so that we can sidestep the Supreme Court that is changing the rules to pass. This bill would allow for court shopping to become a thing in Utah and give actors the ability to sidestep Utah's constitution. Representative MacPherson said that from a strictly policy view, that this looks beneficial. That may be the case, but policy is not the only view that we have. We need to look to public trust checks and balances, and making sure that partisan politics are kept out of the judiciary. And for these reasons, I ask you to oppose this bill.

  22. Corinne Johnson, Utah Parents United1:29:49

      Good afternoon. I'm Corinne Johnson, president of Utah Parents United, and one of our core priorities this year is protecting the Utah Constitution. And you may not have seen me in this committee very often because this is a new priority for us. That's because as parents this year, we've experienced something we have not experienced before. We have watched our cons constitution become eroded and we support protecting the Constitution because the Constitution is what protects parents. It safeguards family authority, individual freedom, due process, and representative government. When the Constitution is weakened, parents lose protection. Defending the Constitution isn't political. It's foundational. It's the strongest protection every parent in Utah has. Sadly, we've watched the judiciary fail that responsibility. We've seen how power concentrated in a single judge can produce sweeping decisions that don't reflect constitutional limits, legislative intent, or the will of the people, yet still reach in and reshape the lives of families across the state. When it comes to constitutional rights, a system that vests the level of authority in one courtroom is not accountability. Power consultated in one judge has not protected our rights. And HB 3 92 is a constitutional response to that erosion. The legislature has the authority to structure courts in the judicial process in this manner as proposed. This isn't new, it is an extreme. This is lawful governance. Parents deserve stability. Families deserve consistency. Our rights deserve real protection. We applaud the sponsor for bringing forward a serious lawful solution that restores balance and strengthens the constitutional structure that protects families. Utah Parents United proudly supports HB 3 92 and urges its passage. Thank you

  23. Trevor Bradford, resident1:31:55

      Chair. Thank you. Uh, my name is Trevor Bradford and I'm here, uh, representing myself. Uh, I'm part of District 20. I'm a 20 year practicing trial attorney, and I oppose this bill. I second. Is that House District 20 or Senate House, house District 20? Yes. You, uh, I oppose this bill and I second, uh, the comments of Mr. D Dressel. Uh, uh, this is an intrusion into the, uh, court system that is unwarranted. It's a, it's a solution in search of a problem. In my experience, trial courts, district courts are very able to deal with constitutional issues. Uh, any, any problems they may have in it has to do with, uh, a lack of allocation of resources to those courts. Uh, so I respectfully request that the, this body, uh, oppose, uh, this bill. Thank you.

  24. Unknown speaker1:32:50speaker not certain

      I have a question for you. You're a practicing attorney. Yeah. Here, right? Mm-hmm. You seem pretty reasonable. Yeah. Okay. You've been here for a long time. Yeah. Um, you just stated that any problems in the district courts are, are due to a lack of resources. Are you saying that there are no problems in the district court? No. The problem that this bill addresses is mostly related to a lack of funding. Okay. If, if, if we're trying to solve the problem of getting constitutional issues through the court systems quicker mm-hmm. The funding will help that.

  25. Committee chair1:33:28

      Okay. Thank you. Go ahead.

  26. Christina Jepsen, resident1:33:31

      Thank you. My name's Christina Jepsen. I'm a Salt Lake City resident. Before that, I've been a resident of Davis County my entire life have lived in Utah my entire life. I'm the mother of four girls and I'm a grandmother. I've also been practicing law for 30 years as a trial attorney. I deal with the courts at all levels. Um, and just a few things about my history. I out out of law school, I clerked for judges for two years, um, and saw it from that perspective, of course, practicing law for 30 years. I was also a volunteer small claims judge for 10 years. So I have a lot of experience, um, regarding what we need in courts to make things work. I am opposed to this bill. Um, if we need to address the issue Absolutely. Of workload and the ability to get things through courts. And I think Ms. Ika brought up the really good point that sometimes it takes someone five years to get an answer, but that applies across the board. Someone who wants a divorce, someone who has a landlord tenant issue, somebody who has any kind of issue before the court, everybody needs that help, not just a specialized court. We need judges added at the district court level to address all issues. Not a specialized court where the judges are being selected by the legislative branch to decide particular types of cases. It's really is about pre-selecting the judges. It is not about workload. If it was about workload, let's add the judges. Let's add judges who can do things for everybody, not just a select group. And that really goes to, um, that question. I think someone made a comment about a single judge shouldn't get to decide these issues. And that's not how our system works. We don't have a single judge who decides it. We have district judges who decide issues. Those things get appealed to the court of appeals. They get appealed to the Utah Supreme Court where we have many, many judges review these decisions. And we all have to have faith in that system. There are decisions that come out all the time that I don't agree with, but is my responsibility as a citizen and as a lawyer to accept those decisions from our judicial branch under separation of powers. It's really, really critical. So when we sit here today thinking about our constitutional system, our judicial system, our legislative branch, which of course has a very important role, we have to make sure that we're respecting all of those branches. And here, let's give the judges to the judicial branch that they need, not the ones that they don't need. Thank you so much. Thanks.

  27. Maryanne Christensen, Utah Legislative Watch1:36:09

      Go ahead. Maryanne Christensen, executive Director of Utah Legislative Watch. I am here to speak in favor of this bill. Our constitutions, both the US Constitution and the Utah constitutions are the contracts between the government and the people. And I'm very dismayed that people are trying to put a constitutional question before the courts in the same basket that they would put all other questions like divorces and such. It just shouldn't be that way. We have had a single judge rule against the plain reading of the constitution when it comes to the authority over redistricting. And it has, it has forced the entire state into a constitutional crisis. We have a, a county that has voted to not accept the, the judge chosen redistricting map. We have other counties that are planning on using it. We have other counties that are just waiting to see what happens. We have no idea if the question can possibly make it through the courts in time for our next election. This is a constitutional crisis. And right now the court system is not set up to deal with a constitutional crisis in an expedited manner. This three ma, this three person, um, commission will take care of that. Um, a constitutional question should go straight to a higher court. I wasn't comfortable with the idea of it going straight to the Supreme Court. And so this three member commission takes care of that, um, that question of process that I had, it's an excellent plan. It will deal with constitutional crises quicker than, than even better funded courts would be able to do it in their current form. So I urge you to vote for the bill. Thank you so much.

  28. Committee chair1:38:02

      Thanks. Yeah. You have a question? Uh, if you'd come back real quick. Marianne, representative Sauter has a question. Go ahead, representative.

  29. Unknown speaker1:38:14speaker not certain

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so, so I'm just curious on your take of the bill of how it speeds up the process. Um, we heard the chair, uh, the sponsor testify that it's this exact same appellate process. Well, the question goes, if someone brings a constitutional question to a court, it has to go straight to the, this panel. And, um, we're, we're looking at court cases right now that are just, I would say, in a very political way, being mired down by the courts. And, and the case I'm thinking of is, um, the state's trigger ban. This body passed a trigger on that would ban abortion in Utah with a Supreme Court ruling that was in favor of that. We got the ruling immediately. We had an injunction against that. It's been what, going on four years now. And still we're not even close to the, the case actually moving. And, and I don't, And, and I don't disagree with that. I'm just saying I've practiced law for about 15 years and there's, there's deadlines and timelines and even under, just following our rules of civil procedure and appellate procedure, a case is going to take years to go through the whole process. So that's, sorry. That's all I've got. Mr. Chair. Thank you.

  30. Tyler Young, President, Utah State Bar1:39:37

      Thank you. Go ahead Representatives. Thank you. I'm Tyler Young here on behalf of the Utah State Bar. I'm a bar commissioner and president-elect of the Utah State Bar. Yesterday, uh, the Utah State Bar, uh, commission heard about this bill for the first time, uh, two years ago when, uh, Brady Brammer, Senator Brammer, uh, was discussing the business and chance, if I could say, say the word, chance re court. Um, we heard about it months in advance. Thank you. I see a nod that maybe I got close. I Couldn't have said it either. Uh, we heard about it months in advance and we had a chance to hear from Senator Brammer about the purpose of, uh, that court, uh, to think about the cost to look at the process that would be involved and the workings of it. And the bar had its input, and I understand the courts did too. And, uh, I think it was, uh, a group effort to see that passed House Bill, uh, 3 92 fundamentally restructures how constitutional challenges to Utah laws are handled by centralizing them in a new statewide trial court and limiting the ability of individuals, uh, excuse me, individual judges or local courts to block state laws through injunctions. Uh, this bill protects the government, uh, from injunctions rather than protecting citizens from unconstitutional action. This bill creates a structural bias towards enforcement of the laws that might be unconstitutional with this bill. Laws stay in force, even if the law is likely unconstitutional. It also with this bill harm may occur before courts can intervene and some harms cannot be undone later with this bill. It undermines public trust or certainly could in judicial neutrality because the legislature or attorney general can force the removal of cases with this bill. Political actors gain influence over which court hears sensitive cases. This court may be perceived fairly or not as friendly to the state. Uh, we also, I understand that there was a fiscal note with this. We have not seen this at the bar nor been able to evaluate that and, and what's in the fiscal note. And, uh, we understand there are a couple states, uh, but frankly since we got the bill yesterday, we have not had a chance to compare the laws of those states to the rather lengthy text of this bill. It's been talked about a little bit that our courts certainly have a financial need in other areas, and it's the Barr's position that it is in the public's best interest to spend the money where our courts have told us the money would best be spent instead of on a new court. Thank you.

  31. Unknown speaker1:42:37speaker not certain

      I can give you a couple answers really quickly. It looks like it's about $2 million on the fiscal note. It was released before the hearing as far as the process goes. So everybody understands this is pretty normal. We have the shortest legislative session in the country. We have 24 hour notice. We do too. We understand that. That's it, that's part of our state constitution. We keep referencing, it's kind of a pain for all of us, but we don't get a lot of sleep during the session either. So I kind of feel bad for you, kind of not. We're in the same boat that you are. Only we do it all session long. Um, as far as the the process goes, I think, uh, I don't, I don't think this was in the works eight months ago or however long Brady gave you the, the notice. So, um, I do have a, a question for you though. Oh, you made the, the reference, and I've heard it a couple of times, about, um, political influence over, over who selects a given case. Help me understand what that means. So are you suggesting that somebody in the legislature, uh, would be able to select a judge for a given case? Um, and maybe I'm misunderstanding some of the language of the bill, but that it's my understanding that if the bill is saying we need to expand the court to consider these specific cases, then there could be some influence there with the, um, attorney general's office and the legislature.

  32. Tyler Young, President, Utah State Bar1:43:57

      Okay. So meaning, uh, the potential in a, in a given case that we would expand the court just for that particular case, but, um, 'cause I understood it was a three judge panel In, in the district court. Yeah. Yeah. Um, yes, and I think it, it, um, it gives that impression and I, I have to acknowledge that I, I have not fully digested all of this. That's what it appears to me in my quick reading of it. Only having it.

  33. Unknown speaker1:44:23speaker not certain

      I wanna make sure I understand what're, it's like the third time I've heard somebody say that. So, um, okay. Alright. Thank you.

  34. Committee chair1:44:30

      We'll go ahead and go to the next one. Thank you. Go ahead. Yep.

  35. Linda Smith, resident1:44:34

      Good afternoon. Uh, Mr. Chair and Committee. My name is Lynndyl Smith. I'm a lawyer at of Salt Lake City. I'm an attorney and I'm a retired law professor. Uh, when I was a law professor, I oversaw the internship, uh, program. My students worked regularly with all of the judges. Uh, we taught a course in the judicial process where we looked at different structures of courts as well as talked about how judges make decisions. Um, it's not a terrible idea to think about having a three judge panel to decide injunctions. That's what we did federally from I think 1910 to 1976. Right. We stopped doing it, uh, for all these cases in 76 because there was too much workload for the Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court. And so now these three judge panels are limited to, um, redistricting cases. The North Carolina and Tennessee cases are different. Um, fast research last night tells me both of those, uh, courts elect their trial judges. North Carolina elects their trial court judges in a partisan election. People were concerned in those states, uh, with forum shopping. Uh, people were filing cases in a particular district or a particular area, um, to get the judge they wanted from a political perspective. And so these panels were put into place. And it wasn't a new court, it was just a panel of random three judges like, um, uh, Mr. Stoddard was mentioning in order to get around the forum shopping. So we don't have forum shopping problems here in Utah. At least I've not heard of it. Most of these cases that challenge constitutional issues are filed in the third district court, but I think they file 'em in the third district court. 'cause that's where the lawyers work and that's where the, uh, ag is. Um, I worked with, uh, judges in Provo, judges in St. George Judges in Logan that supervised my students. I found them all to be excellent. If I were a lawyer in Logan, I'd file a constitutional case in Logan. I wouldn't have a problem with that. So I don't think really we're dealing with form shopping like these other states did. Structuring a court, a trial court to do just constitutional cases is something that no other state in this union has nowhere. It looks almost like what they do in France and Italy because in the constitu in the continental system of law, and it's not common law, it's all statutory law. Um, they only have specialized courts. This is the family court, this is the criminal court, this is the business court, and they have a constitutional court. And the constitutional court decides everything trial to appeal. They decide the constitution. But that's what this looks most like. And so you're gonna have this junior constitutional court before the senior Constitutional court, Supreme Court gets it. That's, that's tough. I'm not seeing that structure. But what most surprised me about this bill was that I didn't hear about it from Chief Justice judicial statement of the judiciary. No one's consulted with the courts about this. I heard from Mr. Young that there was a year of consultation about the Chancery court and a chancery court. Isn't that unusual? I would think something like this. And the concerns, legitimate concerns you have about timeliness and about expertise at the trial level should be a subject of study with the courts, the administrative office of the courts, the judiciary, the bar, and the legislature. I could see, uh, a task force or committee coming out of this to look at the legitimate concerns that things take time. And also, I don't think this is a concern here, but in the federal system, there's been a lot of concern about a single judge making a decision that affects the whole country. And the US Supremes have gotten sort of bothered about that. Um, there's some advantage of having three judges in terms of them thinking things through and making sure that they're all on board, that they're making the decision the right way, on the right basis. Um, I wouldn't be opposed to that kind of panel, probably the way, um, Representative Stoddard suggested, but it's not gonna be more efficient. I mean, if you don't give 'em any other work, and they sit there saying, why know they're gonna file a constitutional case, we don't have anything to do. It might be more efficient, but if they've got other cases, it's not necessarily gonna be more efficient. And you gotta get three people on board about how they're gonna decide something. Three people all deciding they agree on something, um, that is difficult. I mean, you people were concerned that the Supreme Court too took too long to decide these controversial cases. So I'm thinking this is not yet baked and further study is necessary. But let me talk a little bit about why we didn't go to the Supreme Court, the administrative office of the courts and say, let's look into this problem. I feel that that's because of a breakdown between, and the relations between the judiciary and the legislature. And that's terrible for our democracy. We simply can't have a democracy if we have one branch of government pointing the finger at another branch of government as being not doing their job. Um, now let me just step back and give you a little perspective. The federal courts expanded individual rights in substantial ways. In the fifties, the sixties and the seventies. Blacks got the right to well, many rights in terms of integration. Women got rights, disabled people got rights. And this happened in federal court. And in the last couple decades, the federal court's backed off on some of the civil rights that had been established. And so individuals who feel that they had a right and now it's been taken away, they now filed their case in state court saying, you know this Right, that I've had all along. Maybe I've got a state constitutional right. And so not surprisingly, we're seeing a lot of controversial cases filed in state courts. It's not that these judges are going out saying, Hey, I think there's an issue. We should decide about it. I mean, legislators can do that. Um, people come to you with an issue and you can say, I'll take that issue up. I think I'll write a law. Courts don't do that. They've got to respond to the litigants that come before them and make a decision. Some of them might have been fine with, you know, not me. I'd be happy not to decide that case. That looks a little too controversial. But it's their job to decide these cases. And the legislature as well has passed laws that limit rights. And people have said, I'm gonna go to the courts. I thought I had that right to make that decision for myself, for my kid. Um, and the courts are obligated to make that decision. It is so important for our democracy that we respect the separate roles of the legislature, the executive and the courts. The courts must be allowed to hold accountable, the executive when it doesn't behave correctly. And I think we've heard from some of our Senator Vickers, some of, I think the Speaker of the House speaking out about people not doing their job in the immigration area. I think the Speaker of the House said, Congress needs to fix this immigration stuff. And I agree, I think Senator Curtis said, Hey, we need to have oversights so that people that misbehave are investigated. And I agree. And the sad fact is some of the laws you pass are gonna be held unconstitutional if it were not. So we would not have a democracy. We would have an authoritarian government in which the court is expected to rubber stamp everything. And if we go down that path, we will not have the civil society we have today. People need to depend on the courts being neutral, otherwise they'll stop by following the law. They won't be be bring their disputes to court. They'll bribe somebody to get what they want, or they'll use violent means to get what the way they want. So the rule of law is crucial for this democracy to function. And I beg of you step away from the arguments, work together with the courts to address and the administrative office of the courts and the bar to address legitimate problems that I think you've, you've surfaced. Thank you

  36. Committee chair1:53:11

      Professor Smith.

  37. Unknown speaker1:53:12speaker not certain

      I've got a question for you. So you mentioned a number of times, you talked about accountability courts have to be able to hold executive accountable. Uh, you stopped short of saying the legislative, but that's true too.

  38. Linda Smith, resident1:53:23

      Yes. Right. Yes. You mentioned some examples of that. What does accountability look like for the judiciary? Well, okay, that's an excellent question. First, structurally, our retention elections are designed to, uh, afford accountability because before a retention election happens, and it happens three years after appointment, um, the, um, JP the Judicial Peck Performance Evaluation Committee Commission, um, surveys, all the lawyers that have appeared before this judge to see whether this judge knows what they're talking about, treats people with respect, uh, does the procedure is timely. Jurors are surveyed, court staff are surveyed. The stats of this judge's, um, case handling is looked at. And then jpeg, which has legislative representatives, um, looks at the scores and decides whether to score this person as passing. And then the voters get this information, which is really robust. Most people don't dig down into the information that's available. So judicial retention elections is the main source of accountability. And of course, appeals. If a judge makes a mistake, they appeal it. But if the judge is being unethical, there's the judicial conduct commission. Um, so that judges can who are, um, and even if a judge is being lazy, if a judge is not doing their job on time, there's a accountability through that. Um, and this legislature own time has created lots of bodies to hold judges accountable. Okay. So I mean, we, we've all participated in retention elections, right? When's the last time a judge wasn't retained? Do you know That? I don't know time-wise, but I know the two judges that weren't retained and I agreed with that outcome. Yeah. And the JPEGs, people say that most judges when they see their scores, if their scores are not good, they decide now is a great time to retire or return to private practice where they'll make more money. So most people don't go up for an election that they're gonna lose in and be embarrassed. It will not help them make more money as a lawyer if they do. So I believe that they step away from the bench.

  39. Unknown speaker1:55:29speaker not certain

      Yeah. We, we see that happen a lot, uh, functionally for the public, which is general. I mean, that's who we represent, right? That's who, uh, gets frustrated and tells us things, you know, that lead to bills like this. Frankly, every bill you reference that we literally comes from a conversation with a constituent somewhere. When we file a bill. Um, the frustration that they have is exactly counter to what you testify to. Oftentimes not just shopping, but almost every one of these decisions that they approach us about come out of the third district in particular. And that's where most of Those cases have been filed. That's the perception for whatever the reason is, that's what, that's what they believe. That said to most judges, they have no idea. Our constituents have no idea who the judges are or who they are when they're up for election. They don't talk to people. Anybody has any idea, which is functionally it's, it's an election, but not even some of our bad cases, they get retained. 'cause we're talking a 50% threshold. Right? Yeah. I'm still struggling. In other words, I'm happy to talk with you offline on what real accountability looks like us. We're up every other cycle, every other year, senate every four years. There's something defined. Let, Let me just make a comment.

  40. Linda Smith, resident1:56:42

      Yeah. I practiced law in Massachusetts for eight years before I moved here. First for a big firm and then for legal services. I appeared before many different judges in Massachusetts. And Massachusetts is about as far away politically from Utah as you can get. Okay. Yeah. Been there. Yeah. There were some incompetent judges there that were appointed by, by the, by governors who didn't have a merit selection system because they were buddies. Okay. I came here and immediately became involved with our judicial internship program. And I was so impressed by our judges in Utah. I was so impressed. I didn't expect to be impressed. You know, Utah, coming from Massachusetts to Utah, big change. The judges were great Compared to I work in Las Vegas. I see the signs, like, I don't want to turn us into that. Uh, that's, that's a joke. That's a joke of a different kind. At the same time, this is beyond apathy. Like they have no idea who any of 'em are when we're talking about judicial retention. I don't think it's a, I can't, you can this, it's a valid method of accountability at this point. It's what Sandra Day O'Connor's plan for, uh, judicial appointment and retention is. Yeah. It's, you know, it's considered probably the best system in the country because in an election you don't find anything about whether anybody's done a good job in, if you accept what jpeg sets forth and rely that they've done a social scientifically valid, uh, review like grades, right? They should be like scientifically valid. Um, you're getting the data on the judges. I mean, most people don't want to dig into the details and I look at 'em all and go, oh, okay, somebody's got a 96 and this one only has an 88. There's a little difference there. Um, but yeah, I appreciate it's hard for the public to handle. I don't agree that the judges need a lot of holding accountable because I think they do hold themselves to a very high standard.

  41. Committee chair1:58:40

      Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Oh, one thing, I'm, I'm being reminded, um, if someone has already made the point you want to make, please don't make it again. Like we have a lot of people waiting. Sarah, go ahead.

  42. Brandon Mark, resident1:58:53

      Thank you, uh, Brandon, mark, I, I've got a bad cold and so I'm gonna try and speak up. I'm gonna leave this mask on too, so I don't infect anybody else behind me. I was, uh, in bed actually just a couple hours ago, but I found it important enough that about these topics to get out and put on a suit and come down and talk to

  43. Committee chair1:59:07

      You all. Alright, next time you can stay at home and do it on the video.

  44. Brandon Mark, resident1:59:10

      Uh, well, I think these are important issues and I wanted to come down and do it in person. Um, just very briefly, uh, I do want to speak to the bill, but just to pick up on comments, uh, that you were having with Professor Smith, uh, just a moment ago. I, I, I, a little bit about my background. I've practiced law here in Utah for over 20 years. Uh, I, I'm just here representing myself, but just as background, I, I was, uh, the chair of the largest department of the largest Utah based law firm until just a couple of months ago when my, my term ended. Uh, you know, and I've had the chance and opportunity to practice in other state courts, including in Las Vegas, as you mentioned. And every time I do, I have the opportunity to tell lawyers from other states how great our system of choosing, uh, uh, judges is compared to their system and how much better a quality of product and judge that we have, from what I can tell, uh, through that system than what I can tell that they have. And, and for, I, I don't mean to get in all the details, but it's, it is a, it is a uniquely great system that pr that, that promotes people based on their professionalism, their, their ability to do the job, and not based on how much money they can raise in judicial elections or who they know, you know, who their buddies with. Um, and, and so it's a unique system. I am concerned that the, the rapid, uh, the, the, the desire to rapidly change, uh, the system that we've had for decades, that has worked so well for decades and has pres pres, uh, uh, produced a system that is unique among just even the western states. In, in, in, in creating a professional judiciary. I, I'm concerned that all these rapid changes are gonna quickly undo that to the bill itself. Quickly to pick up on, uh, professor Smith's point, I also did, there was a slide presented that, that this court is somehow like, uh, courts in other, in in other, there's a federal, you know, three judge panels for certain federal cases. And other states have also used that. In my own brief research, for example, the Wisconsin judges, uh, the Supreme Court ordered that to happen specifically to avoid forum shopping. And now why do we want to avoid forum shopping is because that allows litigants to choose who ch is going to actually decide their case. We don't want that, right? We want, uh, the role of the dice, the wheel, the, the random judge. You, you get whoever you get r rather than you choose the decision maker. And that's an important, you know, tenant that we have in our judicial system. And, and that's why those courts exist. And the, the presenter mentioned that those are all ad hoc courts, and that's critical. It's a critical distinction between the court that we, that is being presented, the, the, uh, with this bill and those courts. Those are ad hoc courts, meaning that those three judges can be picked from a wide pool of other judges. And you do not know which three judges are going to be picked at any given time. So sure, you can bring that to that court, you can bring this to the, to that, to that panel. But the panel's going to change from court to court, and you're gonna get a different variety of judges. You don't know who is going to select or, or who's going to be deciding your case that now, uh, my understanding, and maybe I'm misunderstanding this bill, Representative Wilcox, but you had asked earlier, several of several speakers had mentioned the fact that it seems like they're picking the decision makers. My understanding, it seems like there's gonna be three judges, a new court and all the constitutional, uh, cases are gonna go to that court. Well then, you know who your decision makers are. It's gonna be those three judges. Well, who chooses those three judges? Apparently that's going to be this body in connection with the, the governor who are also gonna be litigants. The, so I'm referring to Specific cases. Of course, the three will be confirmed by sure, the Senate Or whatever. Sure. But the body, the very, the very entities that are gonna make repeated, repeated, um, uh, um, appearances before that body are gonna be the same people that are going to be making decisions about who's on that body. And, and, and you know, it's gonna be those three and, and no other three. It's gonna be those three and, and only those three. And so that's the concern. It, it flips that whole notion of why those other, those other four, the slide that we saw, why they have those three judge panels, it flips it on its head. They'd have those because they wanna avoid forum shopping. This would actually allow forum shopping. And that's, I think, uh, the biggest concern that I have. And also the one I think that was expressed by, uh, the, another earlier speaker, Mr. De La Kreer. Um, anyway, so finally, just quickly on the efficiency and the expediency issues, uh, I, I fail to see how this is going to speed up, um, decision making. I, I had a chance in earlier in my career to, to clerk for a, uh, a US appeals court, which has three judges on, on all of their panels, except when they say in banc, in which case you have more judges. And I can tell you that every in banc case took longer. I, I bet if you look at objectively speaking, all these three judge panels on these redistricting cases in federal court take longer. And why is that? You have three people making the decision. Each of those three people have to sign off on the decision. They have to circulate the opinion around, they each have to look at it, they have to sign off on it. It just takes longer. When you have one person making the decision, it is much quicker. So you're not gonna get faster decisions out of a three judge panel than you are out of a one judge panel. It's just not possible. And finally, with efficiency, we're gonna create a new court with apparently salaries for three new judges and all of their staff and all of the accommodations and a new space, all of that. That, I mean, at least $2 million. I also, I'm guessing that given the structural issues that this raises in, in particular, um, issues with separation of powers given, who's gonna be deciding who's gonna be on the, on this court and which issue's gonna be judge? The, the court's also gonna face some constitutional challenges to the creation of the court itself, which is gonna be additional expense that I just don't think we need. Uh, look, if, if there's truly a need to have expertise, and the thought is that having three judges is going to lead to better decision making in certain classes of cases, then you know, there's a way to do that. Like the other Juab, the, the other four examples given you can do it in an ad hoc way from the existing panel of judges. And yes, let's just add some more judges to the district court, which is really where the need is. That if, if you want speed things up, let's get more resources to the people that are making the decisions. Thank you very much,

  45. David Connors, resident2:05:23

      Uh, Mr. Chair and committee. My name is David Connors. Um, um, I am a, uh, I served for 15 years as a, I need to put my name on there too in a second, but I served for 15 years as a, uh, trial court judge here in Utah, in the second district up in, uh, Layton and Farmington courthouses, uh, retired Juab within the last three years. Um, so I'm happy to answer any questions you might have about how judges make, uh, make up their minds on things. Uh, I'm here on my own. Uh, I do not represent any particular body here, uh, but I do oppose this bill. Uh, if, uh, probably the, uh, speaker that you've heard most, that I would support the most, frankly, uh, here is Mr. Drexel's comments in the sense that, uh, my opposition, uh, like what he, uh, announced from the administrative office of the courts is not so much of the concept as it is to the way this bill is structured and how it, uh, how it purports to set up, uh, a new court. We have procedures within our court system that we probably ought to study and determine whether that might make more sense in terms of how we go forward. For example, we have, uh, tax court judges among the district court judges in Utah. We have water rights judges, something that was just implemented in the last couple years among, uh, the, uh, district court judges in Utah. And we, uh, we do that in order to make sure those judges develop specific expertise in those areas to make sure that they can make good reason decisions. Uh, that might be a model to look at that makes much more sense. I come at this bill as a fiscal conservative, and I suspect many of you would put yourselves in that category. And yet the fiscal note on this bill is in excess of $2 million, and it doesn't really accomplish what I think the legislature would like to have accomplished with this bill. And so to me, it's kind of a, almost a waste of $2 million. It would make much more sense than probably, you'll hear me again in the next bill, but it would make much more sense to add additional district court judges to the court if the, if the desire is to make the court more efficient. But we should certainly study the concept of whether it might make sense to have, uh, current district court judges assigned as additional cons, you know, to, to set up an additional constitutional type court. Like we have our tax court judges and our water rights judges, so that there, that cases could be randomly assigned to specific judges, but specific judges who have background and experience and training and expertise in constitutional issues. We've already done. You've, you, when I say we, you, you who are, we have already done something in the last legislative session to try to speed up this process and make it work better. With regard to constitutional issues that are subject to injunctive, uh, relief. We've eliminated, we essentially allow the parties in that action to take, uh, injunction questions directly to the Utah Supreme Court and to skip this court of appeals that will, that should speed up the process. This bill doesn't speed up the process, it doesn't give the constitutional court any different rules, any different procedures. They still have to go through all of the same rules and procedures that a district court judge has to go through to get to the next phase. You know, the next step in the process, which might be the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, depending on the situation. So this, this is a, this is an expenditure of funds that doesn't really accomplish the purpose that I think is intended. There are, I think, better ways to do it, less expensive ways to do it. And I just think it's the kind of issue that ought to be studied and considered, uh, that any fiscal conservative would, I hope, agree that rather than just jumping to the table and spending an extra couple million dollars, let's think about this for a while and let's talk about what are the different ways that this could be accomplished so that we can have good, better results, uh, not results in terms of what I want the result to be, but results in terms of more efficient, uh, more efficiently determined results, uh, so that we can have a process which we think works much more smoothly. Uh, okay. Again, Mr. Chair, I'm happy to answer any questions if anyone has questions about how the district court operates.

  46. Committee chair2:10:08

      I don't see any questions for you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right, now that, that is our 14th witness, uh, which is our initial number. I'll let, I'll let you go there. Um, that'll wrap up our public comment from within the room.

  47. Natasha Grossman, resident2:10:20

      Go ahead. All right. Well, I'm Natasha Grossman. I'm here asking you to oppose this bill. Now I'm gonna share a story. I've spent many years in childcare. As a daycare teacher. I worked with four year olds. When they realized they were losing a game, some would change the rules, suddenly the goal post moved. And they insisted it was fair, simply because they decided it was over time this behavior eroded trust. Does this sound familiar? Utah voters made their will clear in 2018, and many have been fighting to have that will respected ever since. The role of this body is to uphold the will of the voters, even when the outcome isn't what you personally wanted. When decisions go against those in power, and the response is to restructure the courts, rather than accept an independent ruling, it raises serious concerns about respect for the democratic processes. That's true in a classroom, and that's especially true in a democracy. From conversations with community members that I have had, I've heard the same common concerns repeatedly, people feel forgotten, ignored, and like their vo vo voices only matter when they align with those already in power. Changing the court system after an unfavorable decision undermines voter confidence and sends the message that when the will of the people or the rulings of an independent judiciary don't go your way, the solution is to change the system. Instead of listening, I urge you to seriously consider whether continuing down this path serves public interests, trust this body or the people of the state in the long run. Thank you.

  48. Committee chair2:12:01

      Thanks. All right. We have a handful in line here, so I don't know how to say that. I'll try Simon Canero, are you there online or Simone? There's an accent over the o. Is He there? Okay. Kale, Westin, let you go after him. As a reminder, I need you to turn on your, there we go. Uh, remind you to turn on your video. Um, tell us who, your name, your name, your real name, please. You're still testifying in a hearing and, uh, if you represent someone

  49. Simon Cantarero, resident2:12:49

      and where you're from. Thank you. Okay, Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My thank you for the opportunity for public comment regarding this bill. Uh, my name is Simone Ferrero. That's my given name. There you go. I'm a resident of House District 46 and Senate District 19. I am here in my personal capacity. I have lived in Utah since 2001, and I am a corporate lawyer by profession. I have been a lawyer for over 20 years, about half of that time as a litigator and as an in-house attorney. Since 2013, I have been a member of a judicial nominating commission and have volunteered my time, uh, to committees of the Supreme Court, and I have taught the professional responsibility and conduct of lawyers and judges. As an adjunct law professor, I currently represent a company with clients in 60 countries. As part of my job, I have participated in legal disputes in Austria, Canada, China, Malaysia, Mexico, and throughout the United States. I can tell you from personal and professional experience that our legal system in the United States and in the Utah state courts is the most reliable and trustworthy. Our constitutional text and framework and over and our 200 years of constitutional tradition and history, combined with the prescribed roles of the elected branches of government, makes our country and Utah a great place to live, work, and conduct business. A major reason being that for over 200 years, people in businesses have relied on the practice that all the competitors of for governmental power, that is the three co-equal branches of government, consider and treat the constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Utah as the law that governs those who govern us and respect it. As such as I read House Bill 3 92 and watch presentation earlier today, combined with the other bills affecting our state judicial branch, there is a clear message being sent to me and to Utahans and businesses and others who transact in Utah. The message includes the following three points. Number one, house Bill 3 92, especially the creation of a new court adds to the bureaucracy of the judicial branch. It is unnecessary, burdensome in human resources, costly and state treasure and confusing. If efficiency is the goal, I am press to see how adding another layer of bureaucracy would improve the court's operations or workload. A specialized subject matter specific court constituted of the same people who would otherwise hear or have historically heard. Constitutional challenges strikes me as unusual, if not bizarre, and is something I would expect from other countries like the ones I mentioned before. Point number two, house Bill 3 92 also carries the necessary implication. There are elected branches would either change the courts or create a new court because results did not come out as they wish or wanted. In other words, the message from this bill and others affecting the judicial branch is that it's better to change the court or criticize a judge than to change the behavior just because the evidence came out differently and they disagreed with the outcome. Point number three, this bill and the other bills affecting this state, judiciary has the net effect of drawing away and distilling the political power inherent in us as the people. Our political power, the people's political power, is delegated to the three co-equal branches. It is a retained power and delegation must not be mistaken for abdication. This bill and the other bills affecting our state courts cuts against that very constitutional framework we have enjoyed for so long. I submit and respectfully request that this committee vote against this bill for further action. Thank you. Thank you.

  50. Committee chair2:16:55

      Okay, kale Weston, you there?

  51. Kael Weston, resident2:16:56

      Yeah. Uh, thank you Mr. Chair and committee for allowing me to speak. Kale Weston Salt Lake County. Uh, I'd like to thank the sponsor on some, another bill that I supported that he put forward on firearm safety. And I'm one of those Utahans who prefers to speak in favor of bills rather than against, but I will be speaking against this bill for the following reasons. It's a big bill, it's got big repercussions and LED letting me at least some big concerns. I did get through 1,192 lines, which is the actual size of this bill. I focused on all the red, and I'm gonna highlight some of the big questions that I help you as legislators will slow down and take your time on. Uh, but before that, trust and ethics have been raised. And as someone who has had my name on a ballot or two, or almost two ballots, uh, I would say that trust and optics do matter when you're considering this bill. Um, that gap is getting bigger. It's big between us, the people and you, and between you and the courts. And we need to reduce that to Paradise on gap size and not keep it at the Grand Canyon size. It is. Now, this bill reads as an end run around us following some controversial decisions that perhaps you did not like and an end run around the Utah Supreme Court. In closing, I wanna highlight some specifics that jumped out at me. Uh, starting on line 9 9 5, please pull out your yellow pens if you've got it. It's all hazy. The court nomination commission will select seven individuals. There is a line in there on 1007 again, how massive this bill is. That seems to protect against undue partisan influence. Well, in a, a state that is dominated by one party, that means we need to rely on, on, on, on your good virtue in that regard. Secondly, starting on line seven 50, and I think this is the one that will, will probably draw the most attention from, from many of us. The attorney general or legislature has a right to file a notice of removal to the constitutional court in any civil action of, and this is the key part, significant public importance that is filed in a district court of this state, perhaps Mr. Chair and you committee members. And I could agree on what is of significant public importance. Sometimes that comes with volume, sometimes it does not. Finally, I want to thank the legal bald eagles who have testified. Uh, they are the legal experts. I'm someone who takes pride in keeping my pulse on the political, uh, state in our state. And I think this bill moves us in the wrong direction. So I would encourage you, uh, Representative MacPherson committee members to hold your horses on this. Take your time. Uh, please bring in, uh, the courts, uh, and, and the experts who are not testifying. Uh, and I think we'll be in, in a much better place. Thank you for your time and the opportunity, uh, to speak. While we may not agree on every issue, I do respect your public service.

  52. Committee chair2:19:57

      Thank you, Mr. Weston Kirsty. Kirsty Lau Millard.

  53. Kiersty Loughmiller, resident2:20:05

      Thank you for letting me address this committee today. My name is Kirsty Lock Millard. I am a resident of Lehi, and I've been an attorney for the last 17 years. I would echo everything that everybody has said in opposition to this bill. I would also note that the fiscal note doesn't include any administrative staff. It doesn't include, um, the background and all of that that you need in order to support a court of this magnitude. Uh, the idea that this would only have a few cases a year feels counterintuitive to what is intended, what the language is. What, um, Mr. Weston just pointed out about Line seven 50. I think that it's of note that the legislators asking education across the board to be reduced by 5%, but they're wanting to create an entirely new court that's going to cost two plus million every year. Um, I don't need to echo everything else that has been said and restated. I just would request that instead of moving this bill through at rapid speed, that we would put it on the back burner and let people really spend the time necessary to make it effective, to make it appropriate, and to show that you as the legislators, really do care about what your constituents think, what as representatives of us that you listen and you take the time to make a measured approach instead of rushing this through. Thank you.

  54. Committee chair2:21:49

      Magdalene. Bradford Butcher, are you there? Hi. Hi.

  55. Magdeleine Bradford-Butcher, resident2:21:58

      Uh, my name is Magdalene Bradford Butcher. I'm a constituent out of Provo, Utah. I'm, I'm actually constituent of, uh, Lisa Shepherd. Uh, and I'm here representing myself in my personal capacity. Um, like, uh, Mr. Weston before me, my biggest concern with this bill is line seven 50. Uh, that regards, the, uh, the Attorney General or legislature has a right to file a notice of removal to the constitutional court and any civil action of significant public importance. And the only definition given within this bill is that it affects a significant number of Utah citizens. Um, I am especially concerned about this because that is so vague. It feels that almost anything could be construed as affecting a significant portion of Utah citizens. Um, and I believe that that could be, uh, utilized in a political manner, which our courts should not be utilized as such. Um, as such, I urge you all to oppose this bill. Thank you.

  56. Committee chair2:22:56

      Thank you. Last one. Let we have one last one. Looks like it's Lisa. Yes, Lisa Peterson.

  57. Lisa Petersen, resident2:23:09

      Sorry it took me a minute. Alright, unmute myself. Thank you very much. My name is Lisa Peterson. Uh, I am a citizen. I live in Millcreek, Utah, and my, um, voting districts are House 33 and Senate District 14. Um, I am also an attorney, um, and have been practicing law in Utah for 30 years. Um, uh, professor Smith was my professor in law school, some 30 some years ago. Uh, and I echo much of what she had to say here today. And, uh, all of the folks who've spoken in opposition to this bill. Um, and I wanted to add something new that you hadn't already heard. Thank you. Um, but the speaker before me, well, you're gonna be disappointed, Mr. Chairperson, because the speaker before me just did it. Oh. Um, but one of the provisions that you don't Have to do it, I just wanna point out that that was one of the provisions of great concern that I think hasn't gotten as much attention is that it, there's clearly a carve out provision that allows the attorney general, the state or the legislature to, um, take any case, right? Any case that's filed in any civil action and deem it of significant importance. And only they have the right to do that, to move that to this constitutional court. Um, and to me, having, again, just been able to read this bill for the first time last night, I'm not sure the intent behind that, but that seems to be a large, um, change in jurisprudence and a problematic separation of powers issue. Uh, the only other point I'll make quickly is, uh, a lot of my law practice involves injunctive relief. Um, and, um, to many of the points that one of the reasons for injunctive relief is, number one, it's a historical way to protect constitu constitutional interests, but also it's fast. Uh, people go to the courts to get injunctive relief because injunctions move a lot quicker than trials do. Uh, and they're fast because you have one judge, and you have a set of rules that make those cases move more quickly. If you're adding two more judges to that injunction process. As many other people have already said here today, you're only gonna make this the, the process slower rather than faster. So I would urge you to vote against this bill. Thank you.

  58. Committee chair2:25:18

      Thank you. That will turn back to the committee for discussion or action. Um, I will, uh, make, I mean, this is the first time I, we may have had this many attorneys in law enforcement. We, we always have attorneys here, but there was a lot. So thank you to those of you who, I mean, the rules of decorum aren't that different. They're just less formal than they are in court. So thank you to those of you who followed those. Um, appreciate that. And then I know it's difficult to speak shortly, but we do have two more bills still. Um, so, uh, legitimately, like if somebody's literally already said the same thing, please, uh, let's, let's honor that, uh, part of the rules. I don't, I don't want to gavel anyone today, really. Um, so, uh, turn back to the committee here. Uh, do I have any, uh, discussion or action on the bill? Uh, Representative Whyte, go ahead.

  59. Rep. Stephen L. Whyte2:26:11

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I may ask a question, a follow-up question to the sponsor? Of course. Go ahead. Thank You, Representative MacPherson, we've heard a lot of comments today. Could you respond to the comments that have been shared with the committee?

  60. Committee chair2:26:24

      If Mr. Chair would approve, I'd go very quickly. Go ahead.

  61. Rep. Matt MacPherson2:26:27

      Okay. Um, and I appreciate the, the, the various comments and feedback we've received. Um, and I try to keep some notes and try to categorize the ca the issues that were out there because I think there is, obviously this bill did come out yesterday and it is difficult when it's a long bill to get through it. There might be a lot of misconceptions and perhaps some, um, uh, some unintended sort of, uh, thinking about how this may play out. So I wanted to address maybe a couple of the, the quick little issues, just a high level. Um, and, uh, and also I, I agree with the chair that there's gotta be a joke there somewhere about the number of attorneys that spoke against this, but I don't know what it is. So, but I will say that, um, the first issue is, is this is a surprise bill. I think this has been brought up already. I I don't really have any control over when the bill is, um, basically gonna come to a committee between when it was numbered and out. Um, so I do appreciate though that this committee has taken the time to review this. Um, and, uh, and I, I feel for the audience that Mamie hasn't felt like they had enough time to review it as well. It is a constant issue for all of us on committees and on the floor when it comes to bills. Um, so I want to talk about the first issue that was brought up a lot was the resource needed and the fiscal note. I think this is the same, um, basic issue is that the resources should be directed to where they should go, or there's a concern that these resources are somehow going to be redirected away from where they should go. And looking at the fiscal note, I, I think it's important to point out, talking to the attorney general, that at least from a back of the napkin sort of math, we're spending one to $1.5 million a year right now every year fighting, um, at the state level, injunctions, statewide injunctions. Um, that's a significant cost. There's no guarantee or even likelihood necessarily that would, um, change that in a major way. But I think that there's an assumption it may, um, also when it comes to the time period, uh, of these cases, it's more than just the first court. There are sometimes multiple steps in this process, including the appeals process. And so I, I think that all these need to be taken into consideration. And when we look at that $2.3 million in funding, I wanna break that down. That's three judges. That's six judicial assistants, two clerks in the IT infrastructure for this court. And to remind the committee, the majority of this time for these court, um, judges and for their staff is gonna be spent on district cases. And so the resources are actually being spent majority in the place where it's needed most. And it's only essentially establishing in those circumstances when these cases come to them that they're prioritized in this particular, uh, court. Um, real quick, another issue was brought up very deeply was trust issue. Uh, I think there was, uh, actually a very good conversation about the distrust between the people, the legislature, the judiciary between each of them, uh, as well. Uh, I'll point out that distrust between at least the branches of government is inherent in the system. And it's a good thing, generally speaking, we don't want us all to be on the same page all the time. That's the whole reason why we have these checks and balances. But I do think that it's fair to say that we're not a good happy place today. And it doesn't have to do necessarily with recent cases. This is has to do with the way the judiciary and the legislature has operated together for many, many years. Now, and this goes back a long time, this isn't any about any particular case, but about the processes that led us to this point. This is intended essentially to try to, uh, remove the trust consideration from this equation. We don't have to worry about if it's gonna go to a particular judge. We don't have to worry about how one particular judge may be seen by the legislature, by the public, or how the legislature reacts to a ruling they don't like a three judge panel automatically eliminates a lot of those trust issues. It may require a little bit more work together from that Juab judicial panel to come to a decision. But those decisions are inherently going to be better for the state of Utah, for the judiciary, for the legislature, and for trust in general. And I want to get down to another issue that came up was forum shopping. I think that was brought up a lot. And I think this goes to the issue of

• Feb 3, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (4 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)48:23

     That motion is in order. Uh, would you like to speak to that motion? Uh,

  2. Rep. Matt MacPherson48:26

     Yeah, just briefly. We, we've been working for some time on a substitute for this bill. It should be out. It was supposed to be out before the end of floor time today. I was hoping to get it for everyone to view, but it looks like it may not be in place. So I just hope that we can circle it for now and hopefully get back to it before, uh, before the floor time ends.

  3. Speaker (presiding)48:44

     Thank you Representative MacPherson. Uh, that motion is ordered motion, uh, uh, discussion to the motion to circle HB 3 92. See none will go ahead and place it. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rule that motion passes. The bill's been circled. Um, K representatives. That will conclude our floor time for this morning. So with that, let's go to Representative Pucci. Representative Pucci.

  4. Rep. Pucci49:15

     Thank you Mr. Speaker, colleagues. I just wanted personal privilege. I would like to take a personal privilege. Yes. Thank you

• Feb 3, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (8 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)15:11

     Representative. We'll go ahead and place the motion, the motion before us the house encircle HB 3 92. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes. HB 3 92 is uncircled. And before the body, back to you. Representative MacPherson.

  2. Rep. Matt MacPherson15:26

     Motion to adopt. First substitute, uh, in my name.

  3. Speaker (presiding)15:30

     Thank you, representative. That motion is an order. Would you like to speak to him?

  4. Rep. Matt MacPherson15:33

     Uh, just really briefly, this, uh, represents the, um, the draft of the language that I've been, um, circulating and speaking with many of you about. Essentially this would, uh, seek to, instead of establishing a separate court to, uh, focus on more of a, uh, ad hoc panel that would be established by the courts, um, that would be required in rule. That, uh, is gonna be a statutory requirement through a companion, uh, resolution that's coming out as well. And will allow, uh, the selection of judges to be randomly across multiple different, uh, judicial districts, uh, in the state. And, uh, we'll provide some additional resources to these, uh, courts in the, um, form of three additional law clerks and a, uh, coordinator. Um, we've been working directly with the courts and with, uh, several other, uh, stakeholders to ensure that we're meeting kind of the requirements that we have, as well as, uh, uh, covering all the, um, concerns that have come out through public comment and through other areas. And so this represents kind of a broad change of, uh, direction, but I think brings us to a good compromise. Still gets us in a position where we're able to have these cases heard quickly and better from the get go. And, uh, with that, uh, I will open up to questions or I guess that's just adopting the substitute, but yeah.

  5. Speaker (presiding)16:59

     Thank you Representative MacPherson on the motion to adopt the substitute. Let's, uh, discussion to that motion to adopt the substitute. See none. We'll go ahead and place the motion. The motion before is a house adopt first substitute under Representative Matt McPherson's name on HB 3 92. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes? The substitute's been adopted before the body for further consideration. Back to your Representative MacPherson.

  6. Rep. Matt MacPherson17:28

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to circle That motion is in order. We'd like to, uh, speak to him. Just wanna give the body an opportunity to review all the changes and some time to digest.

  7. Speaker (presiding)17:38

     Thank you Representative MacPherson. We'll go ahead and place the motion, the motion before us the House circle. First substitute HB 3 92. All in favor, say aye. Any opposed? Rule That motion passes the bill sub or bill's been circled.

  8. Unknown speaker17:52speaker not certain

     Uh, matter Meeting clerk

• Feb 3, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (8 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)15:24

     Representative MacPherson.

  2. Rep. Matt MacPherson15:26

     Motion to adopt. First substitute, uh, in my name.

  3. Speaker (presiding)15:30

     Thank you, representative. That motion is an order. Would you like to speak to him?

  4. Rep. Matt MacPherson15:33

     Uh, just really briefly, this, uh, represents the, um, the draft of the language that I've been, um, circulating and speaking with many of you about. Essentially this would, uh, seek to, instead of establishing a separate court to, uh, focus on more of a, uh, ad hoc panel that would be established by the courts, um, that would be required in rule. That, uh, is gonna be a statutory requirement through a companion, uh, resolution that's coming out as well. And will allow, uh, the selection of judges to be randomly across multiple different, uh, judicial districts, uh, in the state. And, uh, we'll provide some additional resources to these, uh, courts in the, um, form of three additional law clerks and a, uh, coordinator. Um, we've been working directly with the courts and with, uh, several other, uh, stakeholders to ensure that we're meeting kind of the requirements that we have, as well as, uh, uh, covering all the, um, concerns that have come out through public comment and through other areas. And so this represents kind of a broad change of, uh, direction, but I think brings us to a good compromise. Still gets us in a position where we're able to have these cases heard quickly and better from the get go. And, uh, with that, uh, I will open up to questions or I guess that's just adopting the substitute, but yeah.

  5. Speaker (presiding)16:59

     Thank you Representative MacPherson on the motion to adopt the substitute. Let's, uh, discussion to that motion to adopt the substitute. See none. We'll go ahead and place the motion. The motion before is a house adopt first substitute under Representative Matt McPherson's name on HB 3 92. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes? The substitute's been adopted before the body for further consideration. Back to your Representative MacPherson.

  6. Rep. Matt MacPherson17:28

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to circle That motion is in order. We'd like to, uh, speak to him. Just wanna give the body an opportunity to review all the changes and some time to digest.

  7. Speaker (presiding)17:38

     Thank you Representative MacPherson. We'll go ahead and place the motion, the motion before us the House circle. First substitute HB 3 92. All in favor, say aye. Any opposed? Rule That motion passes the bill sub or bill's been circled.

  8. Unknown speaker17:52speaker not certain

     Uh, matter Meeting clerk

• Feb 4, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (30 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)7:07

     Motion is an order. We'll go ahead and place the motion. The motion before is the House encircle first substitute HB 3 92. Discussion to that motion? See none will go ahead and place the motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Will that motion passes? The bill's been encircled and before the body for further consideration. Representative MacPherson,

  2. Rep. Matt MacPherson7:28

     Uh, motion to substitute with, uh, it's a second substitute.

  3. Speaker (presiding)7:33

     That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to it?

  4. Rep. Matt MacPherson7:36

     Uh, yeah. So, um, and I'll, I'll go over this in my presentation, but this reflects, uh, many of the changes that were requested from us from the courts in our meetings with them over the last couple of days. And I believe brings us to a good place right now between, um, between us and them, uh, on being able to proceed forward in a way that could be, uh, potentially seen as, uh, beneficial to both parties.

  5. Speaker (presiding)7:59

     Thank you Representative MacPherson Discussion to the motion to adopt second substitute HB 3 92. None will go ahead and place the motion. The motion before is the House adopt second substitute HB 3 92 under Representative McPherson's name. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rule that motion passes. The substitute has been adopted and before the body for further consideration. Back to your Representative MacPherson.

  6. Rep. Matt MacPherson8:25

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, to colleagues, this is, uh, a bill that I've been working on for some time. We've discussed it before. Um, the second substitute, which is really what I want to go over, is a, uh, drastically different position when this bill went through the committee, um, after discussion with the courts, and I wanna walk through some of the major changes here. Um, and first, you'll, you'll see at the very beginning of this bill, it's a much shorter bill at the very beginning, it just simply states that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in appeal, in appeals, um, that come from a, um, panel court. Um, and that's necessary so that they can have that, um, when these cases do in fact, uh, lead to an appeal. And then when we get into the, the, the bulk of this, uh, bill, it focuses on the structure of how a panel is assembled. And some of this i, I discussed briefly before, but I'll go over it again. So, constitutionally, the legislature cannot assemble a panel court without actually creating a court. Um, and while other states have done this, our constitution doesn't allow it. So we are working in conjunction with the courts to have them establish it via a rule. And what this will do is essentially in cases that are seeking to enjoin a state law, um, or some sort of facial challenge or a constitutional challenge over a statute, the legislature, the Attorney general and the governor can file a notice to remove this action from whatever court it is assigned and to have it moved to a panel court. And the panel court will be assembled by the judicial counsel. They will identify a list of judges across the state. We have eight judicial districts with a number of, uh, judges in each district. They will identify at least 50% of all judges in each district as being eligible. And this is, uh, allows the courts to perhaps, uh, identify maybe brand new judges or judges with a heavy workload that they could identify that would not be, uh, eligible or qualified for whatever reason, but would not allow them to limit the scope or the amount of, uh, judges were available in any particular district. So there couldn't be seen a method or a methodology that may require, uh, certain judges to hear certain cases. It requires that this panel be assembled truly randomly, and each judge has to come from a separate judicial district. Um, the parties of the case still maintain their preemptory challenge. Um, it currently, if you bring a case, um, up, both parties have the opportunity within the initial, uh, seven days to challenge the judge in that case. And it goes back to a random selection. In this case that would work the same way. You would challenge one judge out of the three. And that one judge would go back to a completely random selection of the remaining district, uh, court judges, but again, could not come from the same district as the other two judges. The requirement also in here that we updated is that the courts is required or requested from us that we have to be a party. One of these three entities have to be a party to the case. And this is important. They don't want the, the, that to be seen, that the state can reach into a case where we're not a member of that, uh, of that litigation and say that we wanna remove this. And, and, and it may be against the wishes of the other parties in the case. But I will point out, and it has been established clearly that any claim, um, against the constitutionality of a, of a law the legislature already has by right, the authority to join, to intervene in those cases, we have a right to defend the laws that we pass in this body. And so that already exists and the court has made it clear that if we are a party in that case, then we, we can make the motion to remove, there's some clarifying language as far as the attorney general, if they're representing, for example, a state agency or if it is a state agency under the governor, that those qualify as being parties for the governor or for the ag in those considerations and give them the ability to make this removal. Um, the third piece of this is, um, one of the pieces that I think, um, brought a lot of consternation or concern was this idea of state, a matter of statewide concern. And this was something that wasn't very well defined, and there's a lot of circumstances this could have applied to that didn't relate necessarily to an injunction on a state law. And in discussions with the courts, we believe that, um, we get, we get the majority of the issues we're trying to seek under these panel issues when is, when we, uh, have these injunctions. And by putting off the matters of statewide concern or removing it from this version of the bill, which is what I've done here, is we can focus on the most important pieces that we want to tackle right now. And perhaps we can look at over interim or over time how we can look at, uh, matters of statewide concern and integrate them into it. But that has been removed under this particular language right now, which was the biggest sticking point previously for many of the public comments, um, that we got during committee. And then, uh, finally, um, it also, um, it will have some, uh, and, and I'll be honest, I'm, I'm double checking if it's in this bill particularly, but we have an intention in here, and it may be under the companion bill that we'd be looking to assign, uh, three, um, judicial clerks, um, to the, uh, panel court system as well as a coordinator. So providing some additional resources. Right now, district court judges only are assigned half of a clerk each, and that workload gets pretty heavy for them. This would allow this to have three dedicated clerks to panel cases, and there may be multiple panel cases in paneled simultaneously across the state, depending on how many of these issues come up in a particular timeframe, um, before they're, uh, resolved. Um, and so it's, it's good to have some consistency with the clerks, where the judges themselves will be assembled ad hoc on the fly and it'll be randomly every time. So those will change with every case. Um, and I believe this has a, um, an immediate effect and will require the, uh, courts to put the rule in effect right away. And with that Mr. Speaker, I'm open to any questions.

  7. Speaker (presiding)14:53

     Thank you, Representative MacPherson discussion to the bill, Representative Owens

  8. Rep. Doug Owens14:59

     Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise with some concerns about this bill that, uh, I, uh, I think that we're unnecessarily meddling in the business of an independent branch of government. Um, I look at what the, when I look at a piece of legislation, I think, well, what's the problem we're designing this to, to fix? And I really don't see a problem that we're designing this to fix. I see a solution looking for a problem. I think this is clearly the, it gives the executive branch or the legislative branch the opportunity to get step into the court administration to ask them to set up a special court for us to have our issues that we think are most important, take precedence over other, uh, needful business in the courts, um, and to, to make up a special branch within the court to hear our concerns. And I don't see a reason for that. I think the, there are needs at the district court level to have more judges, more clerks and more resources there generally, but I think that applies to any and all litigants there. Um, and, uh, i, I see this as part of an expression of dissatisfaction on a part of the legislature with what's been happening in the courts on certain issues. I think that we have avenues to redress those concerns, either through appeal or for, or through, uh, uh, undoing initiative. You know, having, exercising our interest through the initiative process legislatively. But I don't think we need to begin to change process in the court to, to allow special precedents for issues that the legislature or the executive branch may think are important. I think that's a very sacred thing in our constitutional system to have an independent judiciary. They are the weakest branch. All they get to do is declare the law the way they see it, and they are dependent on their big brother, uh, in the legislature and their other big brother in the executive to carry out, uh, their declaration of the law. And I, I think it behooves us to, rather than undermine that small and special role in governance, but rather to uplift and to sanctify that role that the judiciary has. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

  9. Speaker (presiding)17:24

     Thank you Representative Owens further discussion to the bill Representative Teuscher.

  10. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher17:29

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. Um, I really applaud the good work of the sponsor of this bill and his efforts to try to find the correct solution here to a problem that we're seeing across the state. And I think that that problem is that right now in the way that these, the, the court, uh, process is set up is that it, it's too easy for one judge in one part of the state to step in and put a law that has been passed through the elected representatives and Senator Vickers and signed by the governor of all members of the state on hold. And so when those types of important issues are being faced in front of our state, I think it's, uh, prudent to ensure that there are multiple eyes taking a look at this and that, that those judges are selected in a transparent way and can make their decision. Now ultimately, do I think this is going to lead to vastly different decisions across the state? No, but I think it brings legitimacy to the process, and that's what's important. It's not one judge in one area of the state making a decision, but it's three judges from across the state looking at the same issues and coming to that same decision together. And we've seen far too often in our state situations where laws have been enjoined and put on hold because of one judge. And the process then to go through the entire litigation puts that law that was duly passed by the people, the people's representatives on hold and not being able to be in, in effect, while it makes its way through the judicial process, this just ensures that before we take that strong step, that there are multiple eyes looking at the process and, uh, that they're, they're making that decision, um, with, with their different views and, uh, different backgrounds and experiences. This is something that is done in other states. It's something that, uh, is a process within the federal courts that's allowed to, and like I said, I believe it brings legitimacy to these court decisions by ensuring that, uh, before we take any of those important steps that you have, that you have multiple people looking at it from across the state. And, and with that, I really appreciate the great work of the sponsor and urge your support.

  11. Speaker (presiding)19:48

      Thank you, uh, Representative Teuscher, further discussion to the bill Representative Stoddard.

  12. Rep. Andrew Stoddard19:55

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, I want to applaud the sponsor of this bill. I know there's been a lot of work that's gone into it, and it's, it's to a point where I feel comfortable with where it is now. Um, I do hope that this bill, as mentioned by the representative from South Jordan, that it, it helps bring some trust in the judiciary. And I hope along with that, that we as members of this body can respect the role of the judiciary and the work that they do. I think one of the things that's going on that scares me most in our country is the negativity towards our judicial rulings. And I see that on a state level. I see that on a national level, and I think it's our job as representatives in our district that even if we disagree with something that your judiciary has done, that we go about it in the proper venue. And we have that venue. It's the Court of Appeals, it's the Supreme Court. We've had these discussions on the floor today. I appreciate that this bill is looking to get more eyes on some of the issues that are truly affecting our state, but I ask that we get behind this policy and get behind our other branches of government. Thank you.

  13. Speaker (presiding)21:01

      Thank you, Representative Stoddard. Further discussion to the bill Representative Shallenberger.

  14. Rep. Mike Shallenberger21:06

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Four attorneys in a row. Ugh, no. Um, I look at this as a slightly different angle, and I, one of the number one overall topic I hear from my district are the people are sick of the contention, the divisiveness and the fighting that's going on in our cities, in our state and federally. And so I sort of look at this as a pivot to a different angle. We look at what happened over the last year. We had one judge that very, um, the decisions were created, very divided camps. Two divided camps where one side was saying, this is a judge of virtue encouraged to stand up for what was right. And the other side said, this is corrupt. It's part of a Democrat conspiracy. We need to address this and impeach the judge. And so very divided camps. And that goes back to this contention and, uh, divisiveness. And when we look at this, I come from a world of arbitration. And in arbitration you can sometimes have a one arbitrator, but more common is to have three arbitrators and having a three arbitrator panel or during an arbitration, it creates a collectiveness where it's hard to attack one singular person and single them out as being biased. It takes the bias out of it makes it harder to attack a single decision, a single issue. And it creates more of a cohesive group. That, going back to my original comment is helping to bring people together rather than just creating two solid camps. Uh, I support this and I'm excited to see where it will go.

  15. Speaker (presiding)22:41

      Thank you, Representative Shallenberger. Further discussion to the bill. Let's make it five. Representative Abbott Abbot. Abbott. Abbott.

  16. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott22:52

      Sorry, what was the question?

  17. Speaker (presiding)22:53

      Oh, you had your light on Representative Abbott. That

  18. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott22:56

      Was a mistake. I think my phone Sat on my button. We

  19. Speaker (presiding)22:59

      We're not gonna make it five then. Okay. Thank you Representative Abbott. Further discussion to the bill Representative Snider.

  20. Rep. Casey Snider23:07

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know this, I, I've been one, it's no secret, who's been somewhat hard on the courts in the last little bit from, from my chair. I ran the resolution in special session condemning the actions of a judge in a, in the court in this chair. We've had hard conversations about additional court resources and what that needs to look like moving forward and how we can move on. But I wanna maybe focus on Mr. Speaker some of the sentiments that my good colleague from Salt Lake County, uh, just expressed here on the floor. See, I, I believe Mr. Speaker in institutions, and I believe that institutions are only as viable as the trust we place in them. And right now, there's not trust between the legislative branch and the judicial branch, but I think this bill and this process allows us to mend those fences. You see, if you look at procedurally where the good sponsor of this bill has landed, what it does is allow full transparency into the selection of judges. The courts have told us the selection now is random, but some of the results have been blurred and are not scientifically, could not be scientifically validated as random as it comes to the selection of judges. I believe the courts say that it's random. And, and now this verification that is here in this bill will ensure that it always is that way. I, I want to believe that the rulings are fair, not prejudiced, and three sets of eyes is always better than one. And this legislative branch, if, and myself included, if we are overruled by a decision that is validated by three justices of this state from four corners of this state, then maybe it causes a little introspection as it relates to the legislative branch. Perhaps it's not the judiciary that got something wrong, maybe it's us. And then we would have the opportunity because we trust a ruling and can believe in a ruling to adjust course here through the legislative process. This bill is a good bill and I think it allows all of us to maybe take a step back to view each other's processes as a little more transparent and move forward again with hope and trust restored in the legislative branch and in kind with the judicial one. So, thank you Mr. Speaker.

  21. Speaker (presiding)25:35

      Thank you. Representative MacPherson, or sorry, Representative Snider. Representative Daley Provo.

  22. Rep. Jennifer Dailey-Provost25:41

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a question?

  23. Speaker (presiding)25:44

      Representative MacPherson, will you yield? Yes.

  24. Rep. Matt MacPherson25:46speaker not certain

      Yes, representative. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

  25. Rep. Jennifer Dailey-Provost25:48

      Um, I wonder if the sponsor could clarify for me if, um, this bill passes and becomes law in fairly short order as per the, this, the requirements at the very end of the bill. Would it, would the process apply to cases that are currently, um, in process and under litigation and appeal? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

  26. Rep. Matt MacPherson26:11

      So the way that this is written under immediate effect, it would require the judicial council to write the rule, but then yes, there would be some, um, qualifications there. It would allow potentially some cases that have been filed whether recently or not to move to a panel case. But it's important to note that the courts have made it very clear and we understand very clearly as well that this doesn't constitute a do over, so to speak, that those motions and those, uh, decisions that were made, those are still part of the case and, uh, have to be viewed that way.

  27. Rep. Jennifer Dailey-Provost26:44

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I may, I really appreciate the feedback, um, and context, um, in in which this would be applied going forward. I, I do have concerns certainly, um, the optics of it for our community members who are, I think justifiably concerned that this might be viewed as a do-over, um, that we're moving the goalposts and would certainly feel better if and, and more secure in the intent behind the legislation, the stated intent behind the legislation, um, if this were just to be applied for cases going forward. Thank you.

  28. Speaker (presiding)27:17

      Thank you, representative Daley Provo further seeing no more lights back to your Representative MacPherson for summation.

  29. Rep. Matt MacPherson27:23

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I'll just be very brief. I think there's been a lot of good discussion here and I, I do wanna, I don't wanna undercut anything that's been said, but I will point out that it, it's actually quite normal. It's healthy and in fact it's part of the design of our beautiful country that, um, that we don't, we don't trust the other branches. And, and I think that that's important and it is a, a key to how our system works. And we have these checks and balances that exist for a reason, and that distrust is supposed to be at a healthy level. Maybe we're at an unhealthy level now. I think a lot would argue that that may be the case, but that's why these checks are important. That's why it's important that when we have the ability to check a particular branch, um, when things start to get imbalanced, we should, and that is intended to restore the public trust. I I do live in this state with my children. I want more than anything for them to continue to live here the rest of their lives. And it's in their best interest and all of our best interests to have a state whose government functions properly, that we have faith and trust in our institutions, and that we are well repre represented by the people we elect. And this bill is intended to bring us closer in that we've worked very closely with the courts for many long days and nights on trying to resolve their concerns and bring this bill in its current condition. I hope we'll be supportive of it and I can, we'll continue to work on it as we move it through the process. Thank you.

  30. Speaker (presiding)28:54

      Thank you. Representative MacPherson Voting will now be open on second substitute HB 3 92 now present, having voted, voting is now closed, second substitute HB 3 92 passes this body with 56 yes votes, 15 no votes will be sent to the Senate for further consideration. Representative Cutler, Representative Cutler,

• Feb 5, 2026 Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (78 turns)

  1. Committee chair1:41:47

     Uh, with that we'll move on to House Bill 3 92, district Court amendments. Representative MacPherson time is now yours.

  2. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:41:59

     Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Um, so this, um, what this bill does essentially, um, is broken down. Um, and if it's okay, I'm just gonna step through some of the portions of this, because it has changed, um, fairly significantly from its first version in its first public hearing, um, to now where it stands today. Um, this, uh, this bill, what it does today is it establishes that when a civil action is brought against, um, uh, a, uh, the legislature or the governor or the Attorney General, or they are a party to these, uh, cases, um, and there is a, um, or if they, um, these entities could join these cases intervene because there is some sort of constitutional interpretation or, uh, a facial claim, um, seeking to enjoin a state law that there is the opportunity for the entity to remove these cases from a single, uh, judge, a single district judge, and have it be heard by a panel. And this establishes that that panel, uh, shall be established by the Judicial Council in Rule. And that the, uh, judicial council will, um, will, uh, establish a framework for how these judges are selected. It indicates that each of these judges shall come from a separate judicial district, um, when they're selected for this panel, and that they will be a random selection. And that, um, the court shall, um, identify at least 50% of all the judges of every, uh, judicial district, um, that shall be eligible, uh, to be selected by this panel. And that, uh, and that selection of those judges, um, will be published. So it is, uh, available for the public to see, um, and to audit if needed. Um, and that there's truly a random selection of judges in these cases. And then we update the, uh, code section for the Supreme Court so that they have, uh, jurisdiction, uh, to hear appeals, um, from panel courts. And then, uh, we add a section to ensure that there is, uh, since this will Impanel judges, um, in these cases, sometimes it could be going simultaneously and they will always be random. We want some consistencies. We've, um, established that we'd be adding three additional, um, uh, clerks, um, that will be, uh, dedicated to panels, uh, for these district court panels as well as a coordinator, uh, for the judges to get their calendars together. And effectively the rest of this will be handled by the judicial council, uh, through rule process on how it, uh, works beyond that. And then, uh, it does have, uh, an effective date of May 6th, 2026, um, upon approval and the governor's signature, um, meeting the threshold. Um, I believe that this, uh, will, will be pretty different from the original draft, but I just wanted to make sure I stepped through the major components of it and then open it up to, uh, to you if you have any questions on, uh, any other, uh, changes or anything else that's in here. Okay.

  3. Committee chair1:45:21

     Does that conclude your presentation?

  4. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:45:22

     Yes. Thank you. Thank you.

  5. Committee chair1:45:24

     We'll go to Senator Harper, we'll bring it back to the committee for questions on the bill. Senator Harper,

  6. Sen. Wayne A. Harper1:45:29

     I have a couple questions. So this'll be a rotating panel of judges selected at random from any of our districts. Okay? That's correct. Are there special qualifications or is just random selection.

  7. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:45:43

     So the only qualification requirements right now is that the, the coun, the judicial council will go through the eight district courts and they have to identify there, there may be some judges that, for example, if they're brand new or if there's, uh, some sort of circumstance requirements, they may want to not be eligible for any reason. But we are, the only requirement in here is that they have to at least, uh, make eligible at least 50% of all judges in each district court. But then beyond that, the selection process is truly random and they have to come, each of the three judges have to come from a separate judicial district.

  8. Sen. Wayne A. Harper1:46:18

     Okay. Thank you. And then you specifically called out the attorney, general governor and the legislature. Is there a reason why not the other constitutional officers?

  9. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:46:31

     So the intention behind this is to look at a couple of different, um, scenarios. First, that the state has an interest in defending and by the state, I'm, I'm referring mostly to the legislature and the governor in cases where he is signed, um, laws, if they're seeking to enjoin a state law, that, that, that these entities have, um, uh, have an interest in defending those laws in court. And the ag being, uh, typically the attorney representing those agencies. Um, but we also have, with the legislature and with the governor, a ability to intervene by right in these particular cases. So even if we're not a party to them, we can intervene in those cases in order to then make a removal. But we're also looking at, on the other side of this case that there are sometimes some of these cases where the process will start quickly. And if the desire is to move these to a panel, the intention is to do that, identify those, and move quickly. And so the, the, the, the fastest agents to work on that would be the attorney general as well. And so the intention is not to try to expand the scope of who could remove, but to really limit it to those that are, have the most interest, but also can respond in the appropriate way.

  10. Sen. Wayne A. Harper1:47:47

      Okay. And one more question. Um, you're talking about using existing judges, yet your fiscal note says the cost for three, judge ships, two assistant, two law clerks. Why are not be using existing staff or maybe just somebody, you know, one or two people in, in the current court, court system?

  11. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:48:09

      I appreciate that. And, and that fiscal note is based on the original bill. The updated fiscal note has not yet come out, but the updated fiscal note is just gonna reflect three clerks and a coordinator and not an additional, we do want some consistency since there will be a randomness of the panels. So the dedicated clerks for these panel courts provide that consistency. Also, the, um, the district court judges right now only get half a clerk each, and they're pretty well loaded right now. And so as they empanel, um, they, they, they really will be resource a little bit more resource intensive here. And so we, we wanted provide dedicated resources without increasing 'cause we've already increased obviously, the judge levels in the district courts, um, in a separate, uh, bill.

  12. Committee chair1:48:57

      Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Senator Brammer,

  13. Sen. Brady Brammer1:49:03

      Sorry for the clerks that are assigned to this court. If they are not, you know, I think that these cases are either become really heavy or they're not happening very often. Uh, you know, and so there's a chance that the amount of workload on the clerks may fluctuate quite a bit. Are they still, are the courts able to deploy them to assist in other areas during the period of time that they, that they're serving in this capacity, you know, to help with overflow and in other places?

  14. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:49:34

      So I, I don't believe so. Right now, I believe they are dedicated to this court, but whether or not that can be, uh, or, or I shouldn't say to this court, but two panels, but whether they can work outside of that, I may have to discuss with the courts whether that's allowable by rule. But I will say that they are also instructed under this bill to report to appropriations every year to indicate the cost, the expenditures, how this is affecting them. So it's an opportunity for them to indicate if the workload is too low or if it's growing. If we're utilizing these way more, then there may be an opportunity for us then to either add additional resources or adjust them. And, and I do have the advantage of seeing over your left shoulder, Michael d Dressel and him nodding his head that they could do other, they could work as I was asking my questions. So I, you know, unlike, and I think that makes sense in my mind, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, but, you know, a judge is assigned in a certain capacity to a certain area, but the clerks are court employees and they, you know, they could float, but it's kinda like, you know, clerks help out with other judges calendars all the time. They, they work across different judges depending on workflow. And so I think these would be able to float as long as their, you know, their purpose under the funding that's going to them is to help with this program. So I think that makes sense in my mind. And if there's a difference, then we can, we can look at an adjustment, but I just wanna make sure that we're not, you know, if this is a rarely used court, I don't want to have, you know, thumb twiddling, uh, going on by court staff when there's a lot of work for court staff to do in lots of different areas. I'd much rather have them going and helping lift other, you know, and helping with other judges, dockets and things like that. Um, and so I, and I think that's, that that is correct. And if it's not, then I'll help with anything that you need on that. I, and I would appreciate that if there is an adjustment that needs to be made, I'm happy to work with you or the courts to make that, to ensure that happens. Okay.

  15. Sen. Brady Brammer1:51:35speaker not certain

      Yeah. Thank you. Okay.

  16. Committee chair1:51:39

      Any other questions from the committee? I appreciate that.

  17. Unknown speaker1:51:43speaker not certain

      Um, I'm wondering why the judges that are in panel don't bring their own staff, but you know, that's, uh, you know, that's my question for them. They, knowing how they work, uh, and how they're comfortable with their hiring staff and those kinds of things, is there a reason we don't have them use their own staff?

  18. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:52:01

      I, I think the primary concern was is that, um, depending on the district, uh, some of these judges, um, are, are seeing pretty heavy workloads right now, and their clerks even more so. And so the, the desire was not to necessarily burden them with additional work by impanding them, but to actually, um, for the purposes of these cases to provide extra resources. Because the intention is to, uh, try to prioritize these, um, as they have statewide significance and, and they're important for the entire state.

  19. Unknown speaker1:52:36speaker not certain

      I guess I'm just trying to weigh that it's something to, you know, something to consider. I, I don't know that there's a, you know, to me it feels like maybe there's a, you know, especially, especially something as detailed as the clerk's issue, it might be the kind of thing we give the clerk or give the courts our preference and maybe don't, you know, stipulate that deep into the management side of it. But, and, and

  20. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:52:59

      If I, if I may, um, so this, this actually, this recommendation for the dedicated, uh, clerks came from the courts and we incorporated it into the bill at Their request. Okay.

  21. Unknown speaker1:53:08speaker not certain

      That's good to know. That probably would be helpful. Sorry. Okay. No, it's, should Have said that from the beginning. No, it's fine. Uh, it's, it's great. Okay.

  22. Committee chair1:53:17

      Uh, that looks like it concludes Questions from the committee. We will take it to the public for public comment. Please raise your hand if you hear to comment publicly. Okay. These, so I'm seeing 1, 2, 3, is that it? 1, 2, 3. Okay. Oh four. And there's two online. So you four, if you'll come forward, give your public comment, try to keep it to two minutes or less, because there's only four of you. And I've got two people online, and they'll prepare their comments after you're done. You can have, uh, one sit in each side and just as soon as one seat, emp empty, fill it back up. Mr. Drexel.

  23. Michael Drechsel, Assistant State Court Administrator, Administrative Office of the Courts1:53:53

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is this on? I'll get it a little closer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee members, uh, eight years on the Hill. Oh, I'm Michael Drexel. I'm the assistant state court administrator at the administrative office of the courts. And, uh, eight years up at the legislature on behalf of the judiciary, this is my first time to be in Senate Revenue and Taxation, so I'm, I'm happy to be here. Welcome. And it's nice to see you all. Um, I really appreciate, we really appreciate the outreach from, uh, Representative MacPherson on this, from Senator Brammer, had good conversations with and, and many other legislators and people in the governor's office. And I mean, this has been a, a, a healthy and robust conversation, and I know that, um, no one has to involve the courts in these conversations, and yet you chose to, and we really appreciate that. And I wanted to acknowledge that as we understand the stated goals of this, it's to create a, a panel system that can apply more judicial minds, uh, to some of the toughest questions that state that are being litigated in the state and distributing judicial decision making across a wider geographic footprint so that you have judges from various parts of the state who get to weigh in on these questions of state, uh, state important state law, and then also increasing confidence in the decisions, or maybe said differently, uh, reducing the inclination of some to, to be dismissive about decisions with which they don't agree. Uh, these seem like noble goals. These seem, uh, like something that is aspirational. And I think in many ways, uh, I hope you've sensed that we're trying to lean into this by being part of the conversation. We've been grateful that you've heard our feedback and, and made some adjustments. Uh, we acknowledge, um, that the primary concern we had with the original bill has been addressed, which was pre-selecting the judges to serve in a special court to, to adjudicate these cases. And, and this has changed, and that's a good change. Thank you for that. We're concerned about the potential large number of possible panel eligible cases that might exist. There's a broad, broad swath of people named in the bill, um, under the title, under the definitions of state official and state entities and, uh, appointed individuals as well. If they're named in the lawsuit that could trigger a panel, we're worried about that for judicial operation purposes. Panel work will be much more resource, um, intensive than a single judge. It's judge time times three, so I'm a little bit worried about that. Um, and it is unlikely to accelerate resolution of these cases, although we thought about that. And to Senator McKay, your question, um, as well as Senator Brammer, uh, we, we brought to the idea to, to the table the idea that if we have some people who are dedicated to assist the panel judges, that we might be able to expedite some of this, although it still will take probably longer. I wanted to mention one other thing. I know I'm at two minutes if I could, Mr. Chair, please. Thank you. Um, we still have one concern, and it's on principle. Um, there at line 1 31 in the bill, you'll see that it references rule 42 of the rules of civil procedure. And, and rule 42 of the rules of civil procedure isn't in the bill, but there's a companion piece of legislation that'll be necessary as a joint resolution to amend Rule 42. I believe it's been numbered now as House Joint Resolution 21. It's not before you today, but in that, you'll see, if you look at that house joint resolution, that it would allow for the panel process to be exercised in pending cases, which means that after substantive decisions have been made in a case by a judge, a party, a government party could reach into that case with the panel process and say, we wanna remove that judge, um, and, and have a panel appointed. And that would be an unprecedented ability of litigants to do in a case. Judges can be removed from cases, uh, through disqualification because they have a bias or conflict or some sort of issue that makes it so they can't rule on the case. And there's the ability of parties early in the case to remove a judge, either by right or by agreement with the other parties. But there's never been in the rules, the ability to remove a judge after they've made substantive decisions. And I worry that in having that be part of this project, it will cause some people to, to have a, a lesser view of it. And I think there's a lot of good in this project, but if it's about removing the judge in pending cases, that can taint people's people's understanding of what's trying to be accomplished here. So we're still very concerned about that and would hope that we could continue having conversation with you, uh, about this as this move forward. Thank you. I went well over my time. I apologize.

  24. Committee chair1:58:06

      It's okay. It's a question. Uh, Senator Brammer, go

  25. Sen. Brady Brammer1:58:10

      Ahead. And, and we've had some good conversations, so I don't, I don't pretend to to say that these are questions that we haven't gone through, but I also think it's important to have some of this just in the public as far as like how we're talking about it. Um, uh, you know, 'cause one of the questions that I have is, um, is there any concern that a different judge cannot equally handle the issues that remain in a case after a matter is transferred? And, and the reason I ask that is because, for example, you know, I've had, uh, I've practiced in lots of jurisdictions, oftentimes, in fact, more jurisdictions than not, the law and motion judge is different than the trial judge. And so you go through the entire case and then you get to trial, and the judge is an entirely new judge Yep. With a fresh, you know, fresh set of eyes, and they take the law of the case, which also transfers into it. And so tell me, like, do you have, does, is there a concern about the competency of the judges as opposed to just the, this is a different procedure that we haven't seen?

  26. Michael Drechsel, Assistant State Court Administrator, Administrative Office of the Courts1:59:19

      Yeah, Mr. Chair, great question. Thank you to Senator Bremmer for asking it. It, it's not about the competency of the judges. My belief is that every district court judge in the state of Utah, um, has been appointed through a merit based process and should be well situated to address the issues. I think the issue comes on the perception of the fairness of the litigation. If one party deems that the case is going very well for them, and, uh, is comfortable with the rulings that the judge is making, and then the other party has a special ability given to them after the fact to remove that judge from a case, it can be very unsettling for the parties in terms of whether or not that is a fair development within the case. And I think you might, if you flip it around, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If, if this legislation were about empowering, uh, the average litigant who's not a government officer or state officer, state entity to change the judge, uh, kind of unilaterally halfway through a case in a case where the government thought it was going very well, it would feel very unsettling to you as well. And so that's, it's on the principle of just perceived and fundamental fairness of the, of the proceedings, which is why I raised the issue.

  27. Sen. Brady Brammer2:00:27

      So let me, let me follow up. If, if I could chair, if I can have a little leeway on that. Um, and I, I understand that one of the, one of the concerns has been, let's say that, um, that if we were to take a series of cases that were filed in the fifth district down in St. George, that really impacted Salt Lake specifically, you know, to the detriment of Salt Lake, but were filed in the Fifth District because they felt like they were consistently getting a panel of judges that were, you know, that they perceived as, as being, uh, you know, in a, in a way, uh, that there was, that there was forum shopping going on as to which district you file in. Um, could that also be perceived as undermining the, uh, strength of the judiciary?

  28. Michael Drechsel, Assistant State Court Administrator, Administrative Office of the Courts2:01:25

      Mr. Chair? That's another great question. That's why I like talking with Senator Brammer. Um, yes, it absolutely could. And I think one of the stated purposes for this legislation is to distribute across a broader geographic footprint, the judicial decision making, uh, the judicial decision makers right to, to alleviate or hopefully obviate some of those concerns that you would have expressed. I think the challenge is when you're midstream in a case and the rules change partway through that it, it may feel unfair to certain litigants.

  29. Sen. Brady Brammer2:01:57

      Sure. So I, and, and I guess I, I understand that there's procedural changes Midway through nearly every case that exists, or, I mean, I, I look at the rules of, of, you know, the Judicial council changes the rules, you know, every so often we change the rules mid-session, uh, you know, that happens in every case. And it, and it creates, you know, different rights procedurally in every single case that exists, that pertains to, you know, that could have relation to those. So that's not necessarily anything that is new in that regards as far as rules change. And they become effectively immediate effective immediately. And it's not just because the Judicial Council said so, or the legislature said, so it's because our constitution says that's how procedural rules change, right? It, it's an immediate effective date and it changes the rights of the people within that framework. So we're not talking about substantive rights because this is only about judges who are equally positioned. Right. And so you would agree this is a procedural change and not a substantive Right.

  30. Michael Drechsel, Assistant State Court Administrator, Administrative Office of the Courts2:03:08

      Change, Mr. Chair, if I might, I would agree forward to this answer that it's procedural. Yes. Okay. I would agree that, that, and that's why I talk about perceived fairness and on principle. Yeah. Yeah.

  31. Committee chair2:03:18

      Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much Mr. Drexel. I appreciate you being here today. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ma'am.

  32. Diane Wanamaker, Mormon Women for Ethical Government2:03:24

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, my name is Diane Wanamaker. I am representing Mormon Women for Ethical Government, or MWE for short. MWE is a non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to creating a more just and ethical and peaceful world. First, we want to acknowledge that the substitutions have addressed the most serious concerns we had with HB three, uh, 92. We applaud the legislature for listening and working on improving this bill. We remain concerned, however, that this bill would un introduce unnecessary costs and complexity to our judicial system and are opposed to it for the following reasons. The first is that three judge panels will be, uh, we deem unnecessary and expensive. District court judges are already capable and prepared to do rule on constitutional issues. Second, district courts already have a backlog of cases, and the additional resources that have been talked about during this meeting, we would prefer them to be assigned directly to the district courts. Um, the third reason, uh, the previous commenter, uh, spoke to quite articulately is that it threatens judicial Independence by allowing the legislature and executive to request and receive new judges for their cases. A central feature of our constitutional republic is the ability of the three branches of government to check and balance, balance each other's power. Public confidence in the Independence of the judicial branch is imperative if the government through this bill, gives itself the power to decide whether a legal challenge to its own actions remains in the or ordinary judicial system or moves to a panel. We believe the risk of undermining public confidence in the judiciary is significant, and for mainly that reason, we urge you to vote no on house Bill 3 92. Thank you. Almost perfect timing. Thank you. Yeah.

  33. Committee chair2:05:37

      Uh, Senator Brammer has a question for you.

  34. Sen. Brady Brammer2:05:39

      Oh, yeah. I, I wanted you, you, you made a great point about checks and balances that each of the branches needs to check one another. What do you believe are the legislative checks that are appropriate as to the judiciary?

  35. Diane Wanamaker, Mormon Women for Ethical Government2:05:54

      You know, I am not an EA legal expert, and so for me to give that opinion would be just a, a citizen's, uh, opinion. I know that the, through the Constitution, the legislature has the right to change, you know, make, uh, adjustments to the, the judicial system. It's just that, in this case, considering the current context and really the, the number of bills that are being sponsored to make significant changes to the judiciary, we feel like there's at least the appearance and the public could perceive that it's weakening the judicial branch as opposed to the legislative. So, so let me ask this. Is that, that may be the appearance, but is that in your mind, a methodology for the legislature to check judicial power or perceived, you know, uh, perceived concerns with the judiciary? I, I guess anything constitutional is a, a valid method of checking the, and you

  36. Sen. Brady Brammer2:07:12

      May, may agree or disagree. 'cause one, one of the concern, the only reason I bring that up, is oftentimes we hear it's a system of checks and balances. Mm-hmm. But there's never any identified check as to the judiciary, or there's a refusal to acknowledge what the checks are within our constitution as to what we should or should not do, or can or cannot do to the judiciary. And whenever there is something that might be perceived as a check on the judiciary, and I'm not saying that this necessarily is, but I do have a concern that structurally, that it's that, that we need to uphold the Independence of the judiciary, which when I go read our constitution, 15 of the 19 provisions about the judiciary demand that the legislature get in and mess with the judiciary. Mm-hmm. And so, like, and the Independence of the judiciary is not a phrase in our constitution, it's actually the interdependence of the branches of government in and among them, in and among one another. And so, um, I it's more to make a point that yes, there are checks and balances, but they have to go all directions and not only one direction, and one side may agree with one or the other. I understand that, like mm-hmm. Like, you may think this is a bad idea. I totally get it. But I just wanna make sure that, you know, that we're not forgetting that there are checks against the judiciary as well. And, and I'm not demanding that you identify each and every one, and you didn't come to talk about that.

  37. Diane Wanamaker, Mormon Women for Ethical Government2:08:39speaker not certain

      No. And I'm not prepared to talk about that.

  38. Sen. Brady Brammer2:08:41

      Yeah. And, and that's okay. I think, I think the guest to your, uh, to your right Yes. Is more likely to want to talk about that. Exactly. And we can, we can talk about that too. But you, you brought it up and so that's why I wanted to Right. Ask about it. And I'm not trying to like, you know, be, uh, jumpy about it. It's just one of those issues that it's like, well, you can't say there's checks and balances, but then not acknowledge the checks that go the other way too. You know, I, I, I understand what you're saying and, and Yeah. You know, consider that valid. I guess my personal opinion, speaking just for myself at this point is that at, in this context, with the number of bills that are being sponsored to change the judiciary right after decisions that many in the legislature found unfavorable, it's a significant risk to send to the public that, um, undue the legislature is taking undue action against the judiciary branch. Thanks. And that is just in, in that regard, I'm speaking just for myself. Yeah. Let me ask, just since you're speaking for yourself, when would be the appropriate time for the legislature to exercise its check? Should it wait a few years? Does it wait? Uh, you know, is there a time period on when checks are appropriate? Because last I checked, the courts don't have that same timeline.

  39. Diane Wanamaker, Mormon Women for Ethical Government2:10:09speaker not certain

      Uh, you know, for the checks on the legislature, Uh, my personal opinion would be, uh, to wait till the, the current, um, they're involved in issues have been resolved, and then there wouldn't be the opportunity for that perception by the public.

  40. Sen. Brady Brammer2:10:30speaker not certain

      Yeah, that's fair. Mind if I ask you, uh, the name of your organization is Mormon Women for Ethical Government. Do you represent the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

  41. Diane Wanamaker, Mormon Women for Ethical Government2:10:38speaker not certain

      No, we do not. What's the purpose

  42. Sen. Brady Brammer2:10:39speaker not certain

      of Mormon in the beginning of your name?

  43. Diane Wanamaker, Mormon Women for Ethical Government2:10:41speaker not certain

      Uh, I guess to represent that we are a faith-based, uh, organization. We're a group of women, uh, of faith, But the church of Jesus Christ Latter of Saints has asked people not to use the word morbid anymore. Mm-hmm. I've always thought, like we, why do we still do that? But maybe that's a conversation for another time. Actually, I, I, I, I wouldn't wanna answer that myself on behalf of the organization, but there is, uh, an answer to that on our website. Okay. That shows the, the process that when President Nelson made that request, uh, that it was considered whether we should do a name change. Hmm. And a lot of thought went into it. And I, I will say that if you wanna read that, yeah. That statement, part of that is for us to, we, we wanted to maintain that alignment with the church. Yeah. But to use the name of Jesus Christ in our, uh, work didn't seem like something we felt, uh, we were, we wanted to do. So that's a short answer, and I would invite you to look on our website and read the full answer. Don't miss my joke. This is supposed to be funny, but I'm gonna say, do I need a VPN to check it based on our conversation earlier?

  44. Committee chair2:12:04

      Okay. Thank you very much for your testimony. All Right, great. Thank you. Next up,

  45. Linda Smith, Attorney and Retired Law Professor2:12:08

      Um, good afternoon, um, Mr. Chair and committee members, my name's Lynndyl Smith, I'm an attorney or retired law professor. Um, I first wanna say thank you very much for the changes. Um, SB sub two is so much better than what began, um, a lot of excellent changes. Um, but there are two things that haven't been talked about here, here to, for, that I wanna suggest should be tweaked. In order to have a bill that's constitutional first, the standard and the process that sends the court the case to the three judge panel needs to either be self executing or any party needs to be able to request a removal to the panel. Secondly, the judiciary, if it's not self-executing, needs to have a say whether this is an appropriate transfer. If you look at the other, uh, jurisdictions that have the three judge panels, now I'm talking the federal, uh, courts, North Carolina, Tennessee, in Wisconsin, it's all self-executing. It's, uh, redistricting commission, um, cases, or it's cases that challenge the constitutionality of a law. Um, and I, I sent you written, uh, testimony with links that show that, um, they don't have, what we can't have is the 800 pound gorilla deciding which cases go, yeah. You can't have a system where one party is privileged and gets to choose the forum, and the other party has no say, um, none of the other court changing standards that we have. Um, and you've referenced, uh, parties can remove one judge. Both parties can do that in civil cases, in criminal cases, they have to agree. Um, removal to federal courts is a little different because each party gets a choice. The plaintiff could have filed in the federal court or the state court. If they choose the state court, the defendant can move it to federal court if the federal courts have jurisdiction in our, um, appellate court rules. And here, I think really merits some looking. Um, if your appeal ends up in the court of appeals, you could file a suggestion of certification asking that the Supreme Court take the case right away because, for a variety of reasons. But the one I think most relevant to today is because the case raises quote, issues of first impression under state or federal law that will have wide applicability. If you wanted a standard, if you want, if you wanna just decide that all redistricting and challenging, uh, constitutionality of, uh, of statutes, go to this special court, great. You followed what is gone on in the other jurisdictions. If you want a broader menu, I would suggest coming up with a standard like that, like the court of appeals rule has, which apparently has been used and nobody's, you know, crying that we need to change it, um, and allow the courts to apply it. Um, it's simply inviting a challenge of constitutionality based on, um, the open court's provision due process, um, and the uniform operation of the laws to allow the state actors, the government to choose which court and not allow anybody when they're filing their case, maybe they would want a three judge panel. Maybe they realize that it's a good case, maybe strategically, an attorney general goes, oh, I like the judge. We've drawn this judge isn't bold enough to do anything so new to the bench, I'm not gonna seek to remove this case. And there you're stuck with the plaintiff perhaps wanting a more serious look. Uh, and the defendant states saying, no, no, we're gonna stick with the judge we've got. So I would urge you to consider amending, um, the bill yet again, to either provide a, um, automatic executing standard, or to provide a standard that is like the Court of Appeals standard, um, that would allow any party in the case to seek removal. Um, and with that, I think I, I mean, I've made some other more minor suggestions in my email to the, um, to this panel. Um, I think the, uh, the judicial council will do a great job. Hopefully they will come up with clear standards instead of, these are our favorite judges, right? Maybe judges that have passed their first retention election. Um, the diversity that you're asking for in terms of geographic diversity, I think is fine Mathematics, it may not be good to try to stick it to salt to the third district by saying you're only gonna get one judge ever when almost half of the judges are in the third district. Um, and I frankly think the judges throughout the state are all equally qualified, but you don't want a situation where the judiciary is going, wow, our small, um, districts are really getting sock to, to it because they've just randomly been chosen for these, um, heavy work panels. Uh, with that, I'll conclude. Thank you.

  46. Committee chair2:16:49

      Thank you. Please.

  47. Maribeth LeHoux, Attorney and General Counsel, Utah State Bar Association2:16:54

      Uh, good afternoon. My name is Mary Beth Lahoot. I'm the General Counsel of the Utah State Bar. Um, I would like to begin by, um, thanking the sponsor for all his work on this. Um, as you know, last week, the Utah State Bar had a lot of concerns about this, and we really appreciate the collaboration and are much happier with where this is. Um, we still have con um, some concerns, particularly about some of the logistics and broadness that Professor Smith mentioned, and we look forward to continuing to work with the sponsor on that. Thank you very much.

  48. Committee chair2:17:25

      Well, that was painless. I have two people on online. Mm-hmm. Okay. I've got two, Mary, we'll go with Mary. Grab it first and followed by Seth Stewart for the last comment. That's okay. Should we do Seth first? 'cause he, he's on first. So, uh, Mary, why don't we have you go first.

  49. Committee chair2:18:03

      Um, uh, Mr. Brown, if you'll turn off your camera for just a moment so we aren't, uh, uh, disturbing her testimony. And then, uh, please go ahead, Mary.

  50. Merry Gravett, resident2:18:13

      Okay. Thank you. My name is Mary grt. I am a citizen in Cedar City, Utah. I am speaking only on my own behalf as a citizen of Utah. I was pleasantly surprised when I, um, joined the meeting to see the amendments that had happened, but I do still have some concerns about, um, the bill as it is going forward. And two, um, you know, Senator Brammer questions about, uh, legislative checks on the judiciary. The Utah judiciary is highly respected, and it is held up as an example across the country. And I do not like to see the political process being brought into what should be straightforward legal interpretation by people highly trained with resources at their disposal to interpret the law. And, um, I think that legislative checks should be exercised as appropriate. And I think that the legislature should undertake that when it is clear that their, um, constituents support it. I think it might be best done, um, with, uh, a vote by citizens of Utah if there are significant drastic changes to the judiciary that are brought about by the legislature. And that ends my comments.

  51. Committee chair2:20:00

      Thank you very much. Appreciate your comments. Uh, next we'll go to, uh, is it Seth Stewart? Is that the right, is that the right name? Okay. Seth Stewart, go ahead.

  52. Seth Stewart, resident2:20:12

      Wonderful, thank you. Yeah. My name is Seth Stewart, representing myself an American Fork. Um, I oppose this measure because it concentrates power in a judicial segment that where you can still have a venue discretion on the part of government entities. Um, if you look at, uh, Cohen's v Virginia, the Supreme Court has decided previously that a court that has jurisdiction to, to take a case may not refuse to take it. This implies that under the founding structure of the government, uh, courts are meant to have only one natural jurisdiction. That is to say you can't go forum shopping by design. There is a specific court to which your case must go. And that is the, the, the venue in which it should be decided. This sidesteps that creates a lightning rod for, for constitutional issues that constitute, that concentrates power. And I, I would remind everyone that, uh, literally every citizen under both the United States and Utah constitutions are actually capacitated to address matters of constitutionality, because it's in our, it's in our oath of citizenship among other things, it's in the oath of office, uh, for any public office as I understand it, that we are to support and defend the Constitution. And so this necessarily means that judges can decide constitutional questions of law. They're not actually bound by the appellate structure as some have erroneously stated, because they can always have a more favorable decision at a lower court. And no. And so not have to raise the issue on appeal. And furthermore, we need to restore the power of juries to nullify unconstitutional and unlawful actions and to decide guilt using common law. That's what common law means. It's the law of the common people. And if you don't have juries deciding those, those issues, they're, they're capacitated per the founding fathers to decide matters. Both of law and fact, we've departed from that. We've, we've apostatized essentially from that pattern. And having done it for so long doesn't justify continuing to double down on it and rest questions of constitutionality and allocate them to a specialized panel that, uh, concentrates that power where, where we have, and, and regardless of how the forum shopping, uh, power is allocated, this problem remains that that's a structural component. And the proliferation of different courts and venues was something we've added after the fact. So I urge you to remember the Constitution, actually consult it, and I urge you to oppose this measure. Thank you.

  53. Committee chair2:22:47

      Thank you very much. Okay. I think that concludes public comment. Did I have one more? One more. Oh, okay. Sorry. That was one more. Yeah. Mr. Brown, go ahead.

  54. Brigham Brown, resident2:23:00

      Hi, my name is Brigham Brown. Uh, I'm very happy that I got to go last year. I'm representing myself as just a citizen. I've lived here my whole life. Um, and I would, uh, affirm basically everything that has been said in the public comment. I think all of these issues are things that I am very worried about. I really like our political system here in Utah. I think it's a little chaotic, but I like it that way. Uh, but it requires a lot of coordination and participation, and I think that fundamentally relies on a significant amount of trust between the people and their government. And I oppose this bill for that reason. I think that, uh, all this talk about it causing, uh, perceived fundamental unfairness. I think that that is, uh, not just a hypothetical, I think it's already happened. I think there has been quite a bit of, uh, talk already from a lot of really respected groups of people, including the bar. I'm so glad they're here. Um, that this bill, uh, as just on the fundamental level of like, it's occurring during a proceedings like the Utah government, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch, are right now in like a really public and very vocal, very loud disagreement. And so, uh, from the perspective of a citizen to see, uh, one party in that try to change the rules while it's going on is just concerning. I do think that like, I would like to see work done on this in the future. I can, I can respect the, the problems that have been raised on both sides, but especially with this like tense time. Uh, I just don't want people to, uh, underappreciate the amount of trust that is required for the system that we have right now. And, uh, the degree to which that trust is diminished if we, uh, proceed with this. Thank you.

  55. Committee chair2:24:35

      Thank you very much. Okay. Uh, with that, I think that concludes public comment. I'll bring it back to the committee for action on the bill. Senator Harper, I have a question. First of all, if I may. Okay. Please.

  56. Sen. Wayne A. Harper2:24:53

      I need clarification on this. We have things like tax court, drug courts, veterans courts that are already existing, um, specifically with the tax court. Sometimes there, as I understand it, there are cases that go to the, uh, to the tax course that, that are appealed there, that may quote unquote have constitutional questions with them. Would this bill require that these cases go to the, to this three appeals, or would it follow the normal process to the tax court? Thank you

  57. Rep. Matt MacPherson2:25:22

      For the question. And Mr. Chair, if I may, um, so currently under this, it, it doesn't, there's no requirement trigger. This is a removal. Um, power essentially focuses on the, again, this is, this is, this is intended to focus less on the parties involved and more on the matter at hand. And so if the matter is deemed to be, um, something where we're looking at an enjoyment of a law, then there is the opportunity within a short time window for the, uh, party to, but the party being the legislature, the, the ag or the governor to make that motion or, or notification, I should say, uh, of removal to a panel. Um, but there's not, there, there wouldn't, there wouldn't be any change in jurisdiction otherwise on these cases.

  58. Sen. Wayne A. Harper2:26:10

      Okay. Yeah. 'cause tax, the way that's process is working with the tax commission, the appeals, and the tax court, I think's working well. I would, I would want not want that process to be, you know, changed track with this. Uh, and now it doesn't preclude the legislature, for example, for intervening and removing it to a panel court in those cases. But that would be something that would be done by the bodies at the time if there was a constitutional challenge,

  59. Rep. Matt MacPherson2:26:38speaker not certain

      for example. Yeah. Well This, this is just something that makes that claim while they're doing a, a property tax appeal.

  60. Sen. Wayne A. Harper2:26:44speaker not certain

      Oh, I see. Thank you.

  61. Committee chair2:26:47

      Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, Senator Harper. Senator Bramer, do you wanna make a motion?

  62. Sen. Brady Brammer2:26:55

      Um, we don't have any subs or amendments on this at this point. No Subs or amendments at this point. Okay. So I would move that we recommend favorably HB 3 92.

  63. Committee chair2:27:05

      Okay. Uh, motion's in order. Would like to speak to that?

  64. Sen. Brady Brammer2:27:08

      Yeah, just, just briefly. And I, I appreciate, uh, number one, everyone who's commented, I, I appreciate just the tenor of it. I think it's been professional. I think everyone's, you know, been, uh, you know, good about talking through the issues. And, and I think that there's, um, you know, there, I, I can understand some of the concern. One of the things that I would, that I would say in response to some of the claims of Unconstitutionality, uh, you know, there's a very different analysis in terms of a procedural process versus a substantive, right? So for example, if you're looking at the uniform operation of law, that very much looks at the difference between the procedural and the substantive, right? If you're looking at the open courts doctrine, this does not deny anyone an open court. It does not deny anyone the ability to make a claim, to bring their claim, to bring their constitutional claim to be heard by a judge who can rule on the constitutional claim. And whether it's one judge or three judges that are all empaneled with the same authority to hear their constitutional claim, I don't see any substantive difference in that. Um, now I may have for, I didn't, I was taking notes, so I was trying to get everything I may have forgotten. Uh, some, I'll, I'll look at your email, Ms. Smith. I think, uh, I, I've always enjoyed looking at, at, uh, you have a good legal mind. I, I appreciate that. Um, you know, in terms of, I, I appreciate, you know, I had kind of heard the, the general idea a little while ago, and then when the bill came out, uh, I appreciate, um, you letting me kind of help work on some of the changes that we've seen made. And, and, and I think that's a wise thing to put me on a timer. Never seen that, but, uh, I don't often put senate sponsors or Senate speakers on a timer. But Yeah, one of the things that I would say that I hope is, is evident is, you know, none of the changes that are being made within the judiciary are being done as unfunded mandates with less resources than there were before. Um, the courts have never received more resources in a legislative session than they look to be receiving this session. Uh, you know, and we're not just talking the, you know, there's two Supreme Court justices, but there's, you know, the three district court judges is the fastest growth of district court judges in the history of the state of Utah. The two additional court of appeals judges is the fastest since the creation of the Court of appeal. Uh, and then adding additional clerks to assist with this is a really big deal. Um, you know, some of these opinions are quite complicated and, you know, require, uh, if you've ever had to sit down and write a constitutional law brief, it is not something that is done on the side. Uh, it takes, there are all-nighters and there are just chunks of time that are needed, and there's a lot of staff time and research. And so I really appreciate adding the additional, I think the courts were wise to ask for the additional resources, and I'm glad that this, that was included. Um, um, we can continue to, to work on anything that's, that's needed there, uh, to make sure that we're, we're trying to get it as right as we can. The first time, you know, this is one of the privileges of the legislature that is explicitly granted under Article eight of our constitution. And, uh, you know, the, the, the ability to create new courts by statute. And, and I think that, you know, we've seen more and more cases that have statewide significance. And, you know, we, I think it's worthwhile to have, you know, statewide attention to it and not, you know, having a, a single judge in a single district or single judges in a single district always hear all of the constitutional challenges, you know, is probably not the best thing for the state as a whole. And so that, that, Dan, come on, man. Uh, no. And so, uh, for that reason, I am in support of the bill. And I, and I do understand the consternation on it. And, and that's not, you know, without, you know, I want you to know that I get that. Um, I hope you know, that there's consternation that we hear from our voters on the backside of, of a lot of what goes on as far as whether it's, you know, whether they feel like the judiciary is hearing, you know, or is, is, you know, is deciding for the entire state as opposed to, you know, certain areas of the state and certain concerns in the state. So thank you.

  65. Committee chair2:31:40speaker not certain

      In the chair's defense, I accidentally hit reset the timer, and so it cycled back through the timer, and I did not hit stop the timer, so You're fine.

  66. Sen. Brady Brammer2:31:48speaker not certain

      I, I apologize for my poor timer management skills, but I think my point was made either way.

  67. Committee chair2:31:54

      Okay. Uh, would you like, uh, let me ask a question really quickly, uh, to the motion. Um, I, I felt like the, uh, one way swinging door that only benefits the state is a concern. Uh, and I feel like that's something, uh, that was brought up that was, uh, very clearly, um, uh, something that should be considered. What are your thoughts on, on dealing with that issue in another sub or another amendment? Um,

  68. Sen. Brady Brammer2:32:19

      Yeah, thank you Mr. Chair, and I appreciate this conversation too. 'cause I've been working quite a bit with the courts and the bar on this particular issue, and it's a concern that's come up. And I think that there's a, um, a, a potential, um, solution that we've been discussing on, um, allowing it to both parties, for example, assuming that they meet the entire criteria that's already outlined, uh, as far as that, that the state, uh, is a named party and the focus of the, of the issue, whether or not we can actually hammer that out, um, in this process. I'm discussing it with them. And I, I hope it's shown here that based on where this bill started and where it's at now, that I've been very, uh, appreciative of working with the courts and the bar to try to find a good solution for this that can, um, just be for the benefit of the state and for all the people of the state and, and not just for the legislature, for example, as it seems to be, uh, touted in such a way.

  69. Sen. Wayne A. Harper2:33:14

      Yeah, I will vote for it coming outta committee, but I will not vote for it on the floor with a one-way swinging, and I'll speak strongly against it. Uh, I feel like at some point we need to get that right. Um, I, I'm not in favor of a process that only gives the 800 pound gorilla as, uh, as the, uh, lady spoke. I apologize. I forget her name, and I, I'm insulted by myself for forgetting it, but, okay. Uh, well, there you go. Uh, uh, I was gonna say Barrister Smith, and that just seemed felt, you know, there you go. Uh, but I, I, I am, I think she makes a more than fair point that we should not have a, a, a bar that only the government can, can swing. And so let's make sure that we, you know, as, as encouragement from me and others, let's please make sure to try and get that right this time and not ask us to vote for a bill that has gives us the authority to do something that the public doesn't have the balance for. And I, on a balance of harms and equitable principle, I just feel like that would be something we need to correct.

  70. Sen. Wayne A. Harper2:34:19speaker not certain

      So, um, so with that, um, I appreciate, uh, you being willing to consider that with the bar and with everyone else.

  71. Sen. Wayne A. Harper2:34:25

      So, um, with that, uh, you know, it's interesting, uh, you know, as I've been involved in this process for, I don't know, uh, 13, 14 years now, and been a member of the bar for longer, uh, the, the concern for me as I've watched over the years is it's always amazing how the same judges get assigned to these constitution constitutionality issues in the third district. And it then becomes this, you know, uh, you know, I don't know, this weird thing of downtown versus, uh, versus the state. And it just feels like in an overly political way, the court gets insulated by their robes and their courtrooms and its respect. And I take nothing away from that. But at the same time, I feel like what Senator Brammer said is, is extremely important. Maintaining those checks and balances and acknowledging those checks and balances are the way they are. And we only, you know, as a part-time legislative body, we meet once a year, right? Uh, unless special session or whatever it may be. But for the most part, our constitutional obligation to deal with our check is legitimately only once a year. So this is the opportunity that came up. We would prefer, uh, I'll just offer the court this, uh, this, uh, olive branch. We would prefer to have had a lot of these decisions decided years ago. Uh, the timeline by which these things are being decided, feel like they're getting extraneous. And so in that way, I'm actually hoping by adding a three judge panel, that we will get to some of these issues faster, not only for clarity from the legislative process standpoint, but for clarity from the public, and so that they know and have a reliable set of laws. But I will tell you, waiting on the abortion case as long as it has, is absolutely egregious. And I'm just going to use this slight moment to explain how offended I am on the behalf of legal practitioners on how poorly and how long that case is taking.

  72. Unknown speaker2:36:27speaker not certain

      So with that, uh, I will now place the motion before us to pass out, actually second substitute house bill 3 92.

  73. Committee chair2:36:36

      All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Any opposed? No. Okay.

  74. Committee chair2:36:44

      Would you like to speak to that Senator Harper? Go ahead.

  75. Sen. Wayne A. Harper2:36:46

      Some of i, specifically the item that you talked about, um, I would like to see that, so I'm not quite ready to, to say this is a good, you know, perfect Bill. Yeah, I'd like to see if there's any other tweaks.

  76. Committee chair2:36:59

      Okay. Uh, the motion to pass out, second substitute house bill 3 92 with a favor. Recommendation passes four to one. Thank you very much. Thank you. With that, I'll, I'll have handle one more, uh, motion from Senator Harper.

  77. Sen. Wayne A. Harper2:37:13

      Motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn.

  78. Committee chair2:37:15

      All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you all for your professionalism, barrister Smith. I really appreciate it.

• Feb 11, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (13 turns)

  1. Sen. Michael K. McKell29:19

     Senator Mikel. Thank you Mr. President. I, I need to do one motion really quick. I need to delete and title embody second substitute 3 92 and replace it with third substitute. And, and I can speak to that. Go ahead and speak to that. Um, one of the only thing we're doing and we got some feedback from the attorney general's office and we just let them intervene in these cases that's consistent with our, our Rules of civil procedure Rule 2024. And be because they're involved in these constitutional cases, having them having an ability to intervene makes sense. And, and that's what the substitute does. And you can see that on the line by line comparison. Thank you again for that.

  2. Senate President Adams (presiding)29:56

     Uh, trying to look for any comments on the motion to substitute. I'm gonna go ahead and place it all in favor of deleting title and body second substitute House bill 3 92 and replacing it with third substitute House Bill 3 92. Say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rule Let Motion passes. The bill is substitute to. Go ahead, Senator.

  3. Sen. Michael K. McKell30:23

     Yeah, thank you. And Mr. President, this, this bill's had a lot, a lot of work and there's been a lot of input from stakeholders and I think we've got it in a really good place. This bill's a little bit different than where it started. We, we initially started by creating a constitutional court with new judges. Um, had a pretty big, pretty big fiscal note that has now changed to a panel of judges. And, and, and I think that avoids all of the concern of any type of forum shopping. Um, just just so the body knows when, when I file a case in the fourth district court, that's usually where most minor filed. Um, they're automatically assigned to a judge through a, through a rotation. And, and that's consistent across the board and in all of, in all of our district, district court cases. Um, that model works and it, and it's a fair model. And that's what we're trying to do with this constitutional court to consider these constitutional cases. And, and that's what we do. We have a panel of three, three judges that would be, would be picked through a rotation. I think it's important to note that no, no single judge that all that they, they have to come from diff district, different district courts across the state. But it's a fair process and this is to consider our constitutional issues and, and that I'll open up for questions. Thank you again for the presentation.

  4. Senate President Adams (presiding)31:35

     Senator, uh, does that complete your presentation on the bill?

  5. Sen. Michael K. McKell31:40

     It, it does. Do we have a discussion on this bill?

  6. Senate President Adams (presiding)31:43

     Say no discussion. You for a motion.

  7. Sen. Michael K. McKell31:46

     Thank you. I move this bill be read for third time. Thank

  8. Senate President Adams (presiding)31:48

     You. The question is, shall third substitute house bill 3 92 be read a third time roll call vote.

  9. Unknown speaker31:54speaker not certain

     Senator Vickers Baldry blue in Bramer bus Cullimore Escamilla Fillmore Grover Harper Pinkens Ipson Johnson k Juab McKay Aye. Mikel Aye. Milner Mussman Owens pitcher Plum Aye. Rebe Sandal Stevenson Stratton Vicars bio ler Aye. Wilson Winterton.

  10. Senate President Adams (presiding)32:47

      President Adams Aye. Third substitute house Bill 3 92. Having received 21 yay votes. Seven A votes one being absent shall be read a third time. Senator Sandall.

  11. Sen. Scott D. Sandall33:15

      Thank you Mr. President. Motion to table on third while the fiscal note catches up.

  12. Senate President Adams (presiding)33:19

      We have a motion to table on third. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? While the motion passes, bill is tabled on third Senator Kwan.

  13. Sen. Karen Kwan33:28

      Thank you Mr. President. Personal privilege please.

• Feb 11, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (12 turns)

  1. Sen. J. Stuart Adams (presiding)30:20

     The bill is substitute to. Go ahead, Senator.

  2. Sen. Michael K. McKell30:23

     Yeah, thank you. And Mr. President, this, this bill's had a lot, a lot of work and there's been a lot of input from stakeholders and I think we've got it in a really good place. This bill's a little bit different than where it started. We, we initially started by creating a constitutional court with new judges. Um, had a pretty big, pretty big fiscal note that has now changed to a panel of judges. And, and, and I think that avoids all of the concern of any type of forum shopping. Um, just just so the body knows when, when I file a case in the fourth district court, that's usually where most minor filed. Um, they're automatically assigned to a judge through a, through a rotation. And, and that's consistent across the board and in all of, in all of our district, district court cases. Um, that model works and it, and it's a fair model. And that's what we're trying to do with this constitutional court to consider these constitutional cases. And, and that's what we do. We have a panel of three, three judges that would be, would be picked through a rotation. I think it's important to note that no, no single judge that all that they, they have to come from diff district, different district courts across the state. But it's a fair process and this is to consider our constitutional issues and, and that I'll open up for questions. Thank you again for the presentation.

  3. Sen. J. Stuart Adams (presiding)31:35

     Senator, uh, does that complete your presentation on the bill?

  4. Sen. Michael K. McKell31:40

     It, it does. Do we have a discussion on this bill?

  5. Sen. J. Stuart Adams (presiding)31:43

     Say no discussion. You for a motion.

  6. Unknown speaker31:46speaker not certain

     Thank you. I move this bill be read for third time. Thank

  7. Sen. J. Stuart Adams (presiding)31:48

     You. The question is, shall third substitute house bill 3 92 be read a third time roll call vote.

  8. Senate clerk (roll call)31:54

     Senator Vickers Baldry blue in Bramer bus Cullimore Escamilla Fillmore Grover Harper Pinkens Ipson Johnson k Juab McKay Aye. Mikel Aye. Milner Mussman Owens pitcher Plum Aye. Rebe Sandal Stevenson Stratton Vicars bio ler Aye. Wilson Winterton. President Adams Aye. Third substitute house Bill 3 92.

  9. Sen. J. Stuart Adams (presiding)33:05

     Having received 21 yay votes. Seven A votes one being absent shall be read a third time. Senator Sandall.

  10. Sen. Scott D. Sandall33:15

      Thank you Mr. President. Motion to table on third while the fiscal note catches up.

  11. Sen. J. Stuart Adams (presiding)33:19

      We have a motion to table on third. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? While the motion passes, bill is tabled on third Senator Kwan.

  12. Sen. Karen Kwan33:28

      Thank you Mr. President. Personal privilege please.

• Feb 12, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (23 turns)

  1. Presiding officer38:36

     So I'm gonna go back to you summation and a motion. Senator, let me make sure your mic's on. There you go. Senator McKell.

  2. Sen. Michael K. McKell38:43

     No, thank, thank you Mr. President. And, and thank you to my colleagues for coming back, back on the floor. This is a, this is an important policy. I think we've had a lot of good discussion. And, and, and I will say in summation, we're gonna, we're gonna take the Senator Brammer, um, resolution after this. So stay, stay, stay nearby, but without I'd urge support and move that this bill pass.

  3. Presiding officer39:04

     Thank you. And the question is, shall third substitute house Bill? Three ninety two pass. Roll call vote.

  4. Presiding officer39:08

     Senator Vickers. Baldry Aye. Luin. Oh, Senator Lewin,

  5. Sen. Nate Blouin39:19

     Thank you. Uh, I would speak against this bill. I think this is, uh, a step in the wrong direction. And we have seen, uh, frankly, no one come out in support of this. I've only gotten opposition from constituents, from lawyers, from the courts. Uh, this does not help with the

  6. Unknown speaker39:32speaker not certain

     Careful, there's, there may have been a lot of support for it. You're unaware of, but go

  7. Sen. Nate Blouin39:36

     Ahead. Thank you. I've, I've not heard any from my constituents, the people that I am, uh, in contact with and, and am frustrated that we, uh, we've got other angles to help out our courts to take the loads off of other places. But this is not going to help with the perception that, uh, the legislature is, uh, is consolidating power. And

  8. Unknown speaker39:54speaker not certain

     Be careful. Be careful, Senator, if you will.

  9. Sen. Nate Blouin39:56speaker not certain

     I, I'm not sure how I'm outta line on that, but just

  10. Unknown speaker39:59speaker not certain

      Make sure you don't impugn.

  11. Sen. Nate Blouin40:01

      Thank you. Um, it, it's a, it's a, it's another signal that the legislature feels like we need to step into the court's business. That we need to, uh, have more power over their operations over where court, uh, cases get heard. Uh, I think you'll, you'll start to see some, some shopping around for the right.

  12. Presiding officer40:18

      Senator, Senator here. So Senator, Please, please explain your vote and you debate the bill.

  13. Sen. Nate Blouin40:22

      Thank, I'm speaking to the bill and the perceptions I've heard from, from all sorts of folks across the spectrum on this. I've got a list of people opposing it right in front of me. Um, so I, I think it's, it's gonna take us down the wrong direction. It's really gonna, uh, hurt our judiciary's reputation, which has been so solid in the past. So I'm a no Thank you.

  14. Presiding officer40:39

      Senator Vickers. Brammer. Yes. Bus, Kalimore, Escamia Fillmore Aye. Grover Aye. Harper. Hankins. Aye. Ipson a Johnson. Aye. Quan McKay? Aye. Mikel Aye. Milner. Aye. Musman Owens.

  15. Presiding officer41:03

      Senator Owens, again, explain your vote if you would.

  16. Sen. Derrin R. Owens41:07

      Thank you, president. I just explained my vote. I, uh, represent the largest geographic district. 10 counties in the state. Haven't heard a word of opposition. I vote. Aye.

  17. Presiding officer41:15

      Thank you. Senator Vickers, pitcher Plum Rebi, sandal Stevenson. Aye. Stratton Vickers. Senator Vickers.

  18. Sen. Evan J. Vickers41:33

      Mr. Thank. Thank you Mr. President. I'd like to explain my vote. Uh, this is one that I've actually been thinking about for some time trying to kinda reconcile in my mind what, what's good policy in that and not, not dealing an awful lot with the court. So I usually reach out to some friends and we discuss things and kick it around. Um, there is some precedent for this and we've done this with some other issues and, and set up different, uh, three panel judge courts. Um, I look at the specific issue, uh, and I, I support what, what's being, try trying to be done. And like I say, it, it hasn't been an easy decision for me, I'll be honest with you, but I, I do vote. Aye.

  19. Presiding officer42:12

      Thank you Senator. Senator Weiler.

  20. Sen. Todd Weiler42:15

      Senator Weiler. I rises, uh, I, I vote. Aye, I'd like to explain my vote. I I want to compliment the sponsor, the Senate sponsor. I, I really like the changes. Um, I like where this bill has landed. Um, I think, uh, I would've been hesitant to vote, aye, if, if we were appointing three new judges that we got to pick. Um, but, um, um, I, I, I think that this is an improvement and it follows the precedent in federal courts where we just saw on a lawsuit filed last week where three judge panels going to decide that. Um, so I vote. Aye.

  21. Presiding officer42:49

      Thank you. Senator Vickers Wilson. Aye. Winterton Senator Winterton A President Adams Aye.

  22. Presiding officer43:02

      Third substitute house Bill 3 92, having received 22 yay votes, seven nay votes, zero being absent passes this body will be returned to the house further for further consideration.

  23. Presiding officer44:08

      Senator Brammer. Senator Brammer.

• Feb 13, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (3 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)22:38

     Third substitute House Bill 3 92. District Court Amendments by Representative MacPherson. Representative MacPherson. Motion to circle Rep Sam Cutler. No, we're back to rep Sam McPherson. Oh, he's back. Um, motion to Concur. The motion is to concur with the Senate amendments. Would you like to speak to it? Uh,

  2. Rep. Matt MacPherson23:08

     Yeah, just briefly. Um, the Attorney General had asked for some additional language when it deals with, uh, these types of cases that they, uh, when they get noticed that they have an ability to intervene in those cases so they can move those to a panel as quickly as possible, um, which alleviates one of the court's primary concerns.

  3. Speaker (presiding)23:25

     Thank you. Representative MacPherson moves to concur with the Senate amendments. Discussion to the motion? See none. I'll place it All in favor, say aye. Aye. I Opposed say no. Motion carries. Voting will be open on third substitute House Bill 3 92 District Court amendments for final passage. Seeing all present, having voted Representative Ox here, would you like to vote? Seeing all present, having voted voting be closed? Third substitute house bill 3 92 having received 55 yay votes and 16 na votes passes the house and would return to the Senate for the signature of the President Matter Meeting clerk