Legislative auditors on Thursday released a series of four reports revealing a lack of “accountability” across the governing structures of Utah’s judiciary. The audits, which arrive amid ongoing tension between the GOP-controlled Utah Legislature and the courts following rulings that have drawn Republican lawmakers’ frustration, recommend numerous changes to improve the state’s court system. These recommendations address aspects like investigating judges and ensuring voters have sufficient information to hold them accountable.
In recent years, the Utah Legislature has already taken steps to influence the judiciary, including expanding the Utah Supreme Court from five to seven seats. Lawmakers have also given the governor and Senate a say in the selection of the high court’s next chief justice, moves that previously led to "cries of court packing and the concerns of encroaching on the judiciary’s independence." The new audits may provide the basis for lawmakers to pursue further changes to the judiciary as early as the upcoming legislative session, scheduled to begin in January.
While reviewing the audit findings in the Legislative Audit Subcommittee on Thursday afternoon, House Speaker Mike Schultz commended the auditors’ efforts. He also thanked judiciary leaders for their “willingness to work together” on the audit’s recommendations, acknowledging the existing tension between the governmental branches. Speaker Schultz stated his full support for the independence of the judicial branch, while also emphasizing that Utah’s three branches of government "all have the responsibility...to hold the other branch of government accountable."
Auditors specifically examined the Judicial Conduct Commission (JCC) and the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission (JPEC), which are responsible for investigating judges for misconduct and assessing their job performances. This marks the first time in two decades that legislative auditors have evaluated the JCC. Within the JCC, auditors identified “governance gaps” that they say "limit confidence in investigations and decisions," alongside “weak data practices” that "limit accountability and transparency," according to the audit report. Similarly, auditors found that JPEC’s judge evaluations suffer from "significant weaknesses" and fail to provide complete and accurate information to voters.
A separate report also critiqued the overall performance of the state court system. It cited "inconsistent leadership" as a factor contributing to "sentencing disparities" and raised questions about whether Utah’s sentencing guidelines are achieving their intended purpose.
The audit of the JCC follows a controversy that resulted in the recent resignation of Utah Supreme Court Justice Diana Hagen. Justice Hagen resigned after the Utah House released a complaint, in response to a public records request, that the JCC had previously dismissed. The complaint alleged an extramarital affair between Hagen and an attorney involved in the state’s high-profile redistricting case. While the JCC had dismissed the complaint, citing a lack of evidence and credibility, Governor Spencer Cox and Utah’s top Republican legislative leaders subsequently called for an independent investigation into the claims. Justice Hagen denied the allegations but resigned to prevent her family from being drawn into the independent investigation.
The audit did not directly name Justice Hagen but referenced a "recent case before the JCC involving a member of the Utah State Supreme Court." Auditors used this example to illustrate the need for clearer rules regarding when a JCC member should be disqualified. As previously reported, JCC commissioner Cheylynn Hayman, who Justice Hagen had identified as a friend and included on her recusal list, recused herself from the JCC vote to dismiss the allegations against Hagen. Auditors noted in their report that before recusing, "a commissioner commented on the character of the complainant." The auditors stated that while disclosing personal relationships is expected, this instance was unusual because the commissioner used the disclosure to also question the complaint's credibility. They concluded that this example "illustrates the risks to impartiality that can arise when policies do not clearly define the scope and purpose of disclosures made before recusal.”
In a written response to the audit, JCC Executive Director Alex Peterson concurred with the auditors’ recommendations and provided details on plans to implement the suggested changes. Peterson acknowledged the JCC as an "extremely small agency" that had not been audited in over 20 years. He stated that while the commission has successfully met its statutory and constitutional obligations, "there is always room for improving our processes."
Following Justice Hagen’s resignation in May, Governor Spencer Cox, Senate President Stuart Adam, House Speaker Mike Schultz, and former Utah Supreme Court Justice Matthew Durrant issued a joint statement. This statement presented a united front to strengthen “accountability” within the Judicial Conduct Commission, committing to work together on potential reforms. The legislative auditors’ recommendations are expected to heavily influence these forthcoming changes.
A fourth audit report, which broadly examined judicial independence and accountability, asserted that "although judicial independence is needed, stronger accountability can improve judicial governance and strengthen public confidence in the court system." Auditors concluded that the judiciary’s issues largely stem from an approach that has historically emphasized judicial independence more than accountability.
Among a long list of recommendations to improve Utah’s court system, many of which were operational and generally agreed upon by judiciary leaders, one proposal proved controversial. Auditors recommended that the Legislature "consider reviewing statute" to potentially add representation from the executive and legislative branches to the Judicial Council. The Judicial Council serves as the judiciary’s policy-making body, holding constitutional authority to adopt rules for court administration and set standards for judicial performance, court facilities, and other operations across all levels of the state’s court system. Auditors suggested that this change could "help promote broader accountability in judicial governance."
Speaker Schultz, during Thursday’s committee meeting, voiced "concerns in regards to the makeup of the Judicial Council" based on the audit’s findings and the council’s current size, which he described as "problematic." According to the judiciary’s website, the Judicial Council currently comprises 16 members. Its composition includes the Utah Supreme Court’s chief justice as chair, one other Supreme Court justice, one Court of Appeals Judge, six District Court judges, three Juvenile Court judges, three Justice Court judges, and a state bar representative.