Utah’s courts interpret and apply the law, protect constitutional rights, and provide a check when other parts of government exceed their constitutional authority. Our court system is essential.
Short on time? Find information to evaluate judges in your area at the Utah Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission
In Utah, judges are appointed rather than elected in traditional campaigns, although voters determine at the ballot box whether to retain them. This has worked well: Utah’s independent judicial appointment process has actually won national acclaim. As the Utah Bar Association reports, [judicial] “candidates are carefully screened for qualifications, experience and temperament, then nominated by the governor from a vetted list and confirmed by the Senate.”
Changes in judicial appointments
Over the past few years, state lawmakers have removed several guardrails designed to prioritize merit over partisan loyalty. In 2023, a new law (SB129) altered the rules for appointing members of Utah’s judicial nominating commissions.
Last year a new law shifted the selection of Utah’s Supreme Court Chief Justice from the court itself to the governor. This year, despite overwhelming pushback from the Utah Supreme Court and the Utah Bar Association, state legislators voted to expand the size of the court from five to seven justices.
Perhaps not coincidentally, two Utah Supreme Court judges, including longtime chief Justice Durrant, left the bench earlier this year. An additional two justices were appointed after state lawmakers expanded the size of the court. That means a majority of our Supreme Court justices were appointed just this year under the new more ideological process. We note that several of these selections—including Justices Jay Jorgensen, Michael Menssen, and Stephen Dent—had no prior experience as a judge before being appointed to the state’s highest court.
Why does this matter?
These changes are particularly significant because they follow growing tension between the legislature and the courts. During the same time period, several high-profile judicial decisions conflicted with the priorities of the Republican supermajority—most notably on gerrymandering.
We are concerned that weakening established safeguards and expanding the court amid growing political conflict risks undermining public confidence in judicial independence.
A judicial system cannot function as intended if justices must fear losing their positions whenever their decisions conflict with the priorities of the state legislature or a particular political party. Retention elections exist so voters can evaluate judges. That evaluation should consider the judge’s qualifications, conduct, fairness, and the application of the law—not simply whether a particular ruling produced a politically popular result.
Justice Jill Pohlman
Justice Jill Pohlman was selected under the old process. When she was appointed to the state’s highest court in 2022, Ms. Pohlman already had deep judicial experience and strong reviews, having previously served on the Utah Court of Appeals. (See her court biography).
She is now the target of a coordinated Utah Republican Party leadership effort to derail her retention because of her role in decisions that challenged legislative power. The public calls to remove Ms. Pohlman, combined with the broader legislative changes affecting the judiciary, raise serious concerns about whether retention is being used to evaluate judicial performance or to punish judges for rules that political leaders oppose.
Look at her evaluation, conducted by Utah’s nonpartisan Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission (JPEC). She gets outstanding marks. Mr. Pohlman’s reported scores were consistent with or above those of her appellate-court peers across every category: legal ability, integrity and judicial temperament, administrative skills, and procedural fairness.
In our view, the evidence surrounding Justice Pohlman’s contested retention raises a broader concern about the future of Utah’s judiciary. When political leaders respond to court decisions by organizing efforts to remove the justices who issued them, voters should ask whether judicial independence is being respected. Her record shows extensive legal experience, years of judicial service, and a strong evaluation from the commission responsible for assessing her performance. The public campaign against her—in the context of the redistricting dispute and broader changes to Utah’s judiciary—raises serious questions for us about political pressure on the courts.
We urge Utah voters to retain Justice Jill Pohlman. Our courts should be accountable to the Constitution and the law, not to the political preferences of those who hold power.
Retention elections
We also encourage voters to strongly consider retaining other judges whose work has merited that vote of confidence. From our own ballot research, that seems like most of them this election cycle (with a few notable exceptions).
The Utah Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission has a nonpartisan site that provides extensive information to help voters assess judicial performance. You can also find easily digestible information for your specific judges at the Better Utah judicial retention guide.
Few of us are familiar with our judges, so it’s helpful to review the official evaluations of every judge on the ballot. This can take time. Consider hosting a voter party and sharing the work with family, friends, or neighbors and looking through biographies together. We have found such gatherings a meaningful way to complete our civic duty.
Be aware that judges who get low marks generally opt to retire from the bench rather than to face a retention election, which is why voters see so many judges with high marks. There are a few exceptions—and those judges may not deserve to remain in their positions.
As always, happy voting!
