salt lake city — Utah Gov. Spencer Cox signed a bill Saturday expanding the state Supreme Court from five justices to seven as frustration mounts among Republican lawmakers over a string of defeats before the court.
Republican supporters of the change argued that it would help improve the court’s efficiency. But legal experts said it could have the opposite effect It sets a dangerous precedent In light of the tension between the branches of government. The state judiciary did not request more judges to the Supreme Court.
Democrats, united in opposition to the bill, called the timing suspicious. Last week, the Legislature asked the court to overturn the redistricting ruling He gave the Democrats a strong chance In picking up one of Utah’s four Republican-controlled congressional seats in the fall.
It is possible that new justices will be appointed when the court decides the fate of the congressional map.
Because the bill received approval from more than two-thirds of lawmakers, it went into effect immediately after the governor signed it, allowing him to bypass a several-month waiting period to begin adding judges.
In Utah, judges are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate. Judges are elected in many other states.
Most states have five or seven Supreme Court justices, but a few have nine. Cox, a Republican, said the additions would put Utah on par with other states of its size. He denied the policy was politically motivated, noting that Republican governors and senators had made all the recent appointments.
Once he fills the new seats, Cox will have appointed five of the seven current justices.
Last month, Republican lawmakers took power from state Supreme Court justices to choose the chief justice and gave that power to the governor.
“Seven sets of eyes reviewing the most complex and difficult issues our state has ever faced is better than having only five sets of eyes,” said House Majority Leader Casey Snyder, a Republican sponsor of the bill.
John Pearce, who recently retired as associate chief justice, said this month he doubted the change would make the court more efficient.
“The more comment sets you have to take into account, the longer the process will take,” Pierce said. “If what the Legislature hopes to do is speed up the court’s work, it will be counterproductive.”
Two states — Arizona and Georgia — have added judges in the past decade after making similar arguments about competence.
The first few years after Arizona Its court grew in 2016many former and current judges said she made things happen Less efficient Because more people had to review opinions before they were published.
Arizona courts now issue slightly more rulings each year, while Georgia’s rulings are slightly fewer than before.
Utah Chief Justice Matthew Durant told lawmakers on the opening day of the 2026 session that the court has “essentially no backlog” and urged them to add judges to lower courts, where the need is greatest. The bill’s sponsors responded by adding some lower court judges and clerks.
The Utah State Bar Association raised concerns about the expansion and other proposals that it said would weaken judicial independence. Among them is a draft law that would establish a new court of first instance with exclusive jurisdiction to hear constitutional appeals. This proposal would limit the ability of judges and other courts to block potentially unconstitutional state laws with injunctions.
Republicans are also collecting signatures to try to put an initiative on the November ballot that would restore their ability to draw electoral districts that intentionally favor a political party, a practice known as gerrymandering.
___
Lee reported from Santa Fe, New Mexico.