By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Utah Governor Spencer Cox recently signed a bill increasing the state Supreme Court from five to seven justices, despite the judiciary not requesting the change. The move, supported by Republican lawmakers, is argued to improve efficiency, but some legal experts have concerns about its potential impact. Critics, including Democrats, view the timing as suspicious, especially since the Legislature is challenging a redistricting ruling before the court. The bill’s immediate enactment allows Cox to appoint new justices who could influence the congressional map’s fate and puts the state in line with others its size.
Read the original article here
Utah governor signs bill adding justices to state Supreme Court as redistricting appeal looms. It’s certainly a headline that grabs your attention, and for good reason. What we’re seeing unfold in Utah is a significant move, and it comes at a particularly interesting time. Governor Spencer Cox’s decision to expand the state Supreme Court from five justices to seven is a clear statement, especially when coupled with the impending redistricting appeal.
This isn’t just a simple procedural change; it’s a strategic one. The motivation, as some have observed, seems to stem from a series of setbacks the Republican lawmakers have faced before the state’s highest court. It’s easy to see how this could be interpreted as a reaction to losing, a move to shift the balance in their favor, given how the state’s justices are appointed by the governor and approved by the Senate. It’s a move that brings up questions about fairness and the integrity of the judicial process.
The timing is crucial. This move comes at the same time Republicans are trying to get an initiative on the November ballot that would let them draw voting districts to favor their party. Some people have seen this as a form of “gerrymandering.” If the initiative is successful, the political landscape in Utah could change dramatically, and the state Supreme Court would likely be the arena where any legal challenges play out. The addition of two new justices means that the governor, who gets to pick the justices, will have appointed five out of the seven. This effectively gives the governor’s party control over the court.
It’s hard not to notice the hypocrisy, as it’s been pointed out. Republicans, who have historically presented themselves as the party of law and order, appear to be engaging in the very practices they’ve often criticized. It’s a classic case of “rules for thee, but not for me,” which makes it easy to feel, for some, that the whole system seems rigged. This naturally brings up comparisons to historical instances of court-packing, like the one proposed by President Roosevelt, where the goal was to influence judicial outcomes.
It’s easy to understand the frustration and cynicism this might generate. The perception of unfairness is likely to deepen as the lines between politics and the judiciary blur. When political goals start to overshadow principles, it can be really disheartening, especially for those who value an independent judiciary. You could even feel a sense of betrayal. After all, the Supreme Court is meant to be an unbiased arbiter, not a political tool.
The implications of this move are far-reaching. It’s likely to intensify the partisan divide within Utah and beyond. Some are already worried about the precedent this sets. It’s not hard to imagine the same tactics being employed elsewhere if the political winds shift. This could ultimately undermine the public’s trust in the courts. This means potentially that the court could lose its independence and become merely a political rubber stamp, which would be a bad thing for everyone involved.
The situation in Utah serves as a potent reminder of the importance of checks and balances and the rule of law. It’s a reminder of how crucial it is to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and prevent it from being manipulated for political gain.