Utah Gov. Spencer Cox has just signed a bill that reshapes the state’s highest court, sparking immediate debate over judicial efficiency and independence.

The Associated Press reported that on Saturday, Cox approved legislation expanding the Utah Supreme Court from five to seven justices, a move that took effect immediately due to overwhelming support from more than two-thirds of state legislators. This bypasses the usual waiting period, allowing Cox to begin appointing new justices right away, with state Senate approval required.

The decision comes as Republican lawmakers express frustration over recent court losses, while a critical redistricting ruling, which could favor Democrats in a congressional race this fall, awaits a potential appeal.

The expansion has ignited discussion across Utah’s political spectrum. Supporters, mainly Republicans, argue it will streamline the court’s workload, while critics, including Democrats and legal experts, question the timing and warn of potential threats to judicial autonomy.

The state judiciary did not request additional justices, adding fuel to concerns about the underlying motives behind this rapid change.

Debating Efficiency in Utah's Judiciary

Let’s cut to the chase: expanding a court sounds like a practical fix, but the numbers don’t always add up. Republican advocates, like House Majority Leader Casey Snider, insist that more justices mean sharper oversight. But is bigger always better when it comes to justice?

Snider boldly claimed, “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.”

Nice sentiment, but history suggests otherwise. Look at Arizona—after expanding their court in 2016, past and present justices admitted the process slowed down with more opinions to coordinate.

Then there’s John Pearce, recently retired as associate chief justice, who threw cold water on the efficiency argument. He warned, “The more sets of comments you have to take into account, the longer the process takes.” Sounds like a recipe for gridlock, not progress, when Utah’s court already claims to have “essentially no backlog.”

The timing of this expansion couldn’t be more curious, with a major redistricting appeal on the horizon that could shift a congressional seat.

Democrats are unified in calling it suspicious, and they’re not wrong to question why now, especially when the judiciary itself didn’t ask for help. This feels less like a fix and more like a strategic play.

Adding to the unease, Republican lawmakers last month stripped the court’s power to choose its own chief justice, handing that authority to the governor.

Once Cox fills these new seats, he’ll have appointed five of the seven justices. That’s a lot of influence for one office, especially when Utah’s appointment system already differs from states where justices are elected.

Republicans are also pushing an initiative for the November ballot to reclaim their ability to draw voting maps in ways that favor their party. Critics call it gerrymandering, and they’ve got a point: controlling district lines can lock in power for decades. This court expansion could tip the scales when that map’s fate is decided.

Judicial Independence Under Scrutiny

The Utah State Bar isn’t staying silent, raising alarms over this expansion and other proposals, like creating a new trial court for constitutional challenges.

Such a move could limit other courts’ power to halt questionable state laws through injunctions. That’s a direct hit to checks and balances, plain and simple.

Chief Justice Matthew Durrant himself urged lawmakers to focus on lower courts, where the real backlog exists, rather than bloating the high court.

The bill’s sponsors tossed in some lower court judges and clerks as a compromise, but it feels like a Band-Aid on a deeper wound. Why ignore the chief justice’s own assessment?

Cox, for his part, denies any political motive, noting that Republican governors and senators have long controlled appointments. He argues Utah’s court size now aligns with states of similar population. But when you’ve got the power to shape a majority of the bench, that reassurance rings a bit hollow.

Other states like Arizona and Georgia have tried this experiment, adding justices under the guise of efficiency. Arizona’s court now churns out slightly more rulings per year, but Georgia’s output dipped. Early struggles in Arizona, with justices admitting to slower processes, should be a cautionary tale for Utah.