My general position on judicial retention is pretty simple: I’m extremely cautious about removing judges.

Utah’s judicial appointment process gives the governor enormous influence over who sits on our courts, and voting not to retain a judge doesn’t mean voters get to choose someone better. It means creating a vacancy that gets filled through that same appointment process.

I have serious concerns about giving politicians more opportunities to reshape our judiciary, particularly when judicial independence is already under pressure.

That doesn’t mean judges shouldn’t be held accountable. They absolutely should. And when there’s documented evidence of misconduct, incompetence, or a failure to uphold the law, we should take it seriously.

But I don’t believe we should remove judges simply because we disagree with a ruling or their perceived political philosophy.

Judicial independence matters. An impartial judiciary matters. And sometimes protecting those institutions means being careful about who we’re giving the power to appoint their replacements.

My general position on judicial retention is pretty simple: I’m extremely cautious about removing judges.

Utah’s judicial appointment process gives the governor enormous influence over who sits on our courts, and voting not to retain a judge doesn’t mean voters get to choose someone better. It means creating a vacancy that gets filled through that same appointment process.

I have serious concerns about giving politicians more opportunities to reshape our judiciary, particularly when judicial independence is already under pressure.

That doesn’t mean judges shouldn’t be held accountable. They absolutely should. And when there’s documented evidence of misconduct, incompetence, or a failure to uphold the law, we should take it seriously.

But I don’t believe we should remove judges simply because we disagree with a ruling or their perceived political philosophy.

Judicial independence matters. An impartial judiciary matters. And sometimes protecting those institutions means being careful about who we’re giving the power to appoint their replacements.

My general position on judicial retention is pretty simple: I’m extremely cautious about removing judges.

Utah’s judicial appointment process gives the governor enormous influence over who sits on our courts, and voting not to retain a judge doesn’t mean voters get to choose someone better. It means creating a vacancy that gets filled through that same appointment process.

I have serious concerns about giving politicians more opportunities to reshape our judiciary, particularly when judicial independence is already under pressure.

That doesn’t mean judges shouldn’t be held accountable. They absolutely should. And when there’s documented evidence of misconduct, incompetence, or a failure to uphold the law, we should take it seriously.

But I don’t believe we should remove judges simply because we disagree with a ruling or their perceived political philosophy.

Judicial independence matters. An impartial judiciary matters. And sometimes protecting those institutions means being careful about who we’re giving the power to appoint their replacements.

My general position on judicial retention is pretty simple: I’m extremely cautious about removing judges.

Utah’s judicial appointment process gives the governor enormous influence over who sits on our courts, and voting not to retain a judge doesn’t mean voters get to choose someone better. It means creating a vacancy that gets filled through that same appointment process.

I have serious concerns about giving politicians more opportunities to reshape our judiciary, particularly when judicial independence is already under pressure.

That doesn’t mean judges shouldn’t be held accountable. They absolutely should. And when there’s documented evidence of misconduct, incompetence, or a failure to uphold the law, we should take it seriously.

But I don’t believe we should remove judges simply because we disagree with a ruling or their perceived political philosophy.

Judicial independence matters. An impartial judiciary matters. And sometimes protecting those institutions means being careful about who we’re giving the power to appoint their replacements.

My general position on judicial retention is pretty simple: I’m extremely cautious about removing judges.

Utah’s judicial appointment process gives the governor enormous influence over who sits on our courts, and voting not to retain a judge doesn’t mean voters get to choose someone better. It means creating a vacancy that gets filled through that same appointment process.

I have serious concerns about giving politicians more opportunities to reshape our judiciary, particularly when judicial independence is already under pressure.

That doesn’t mean judges shouldn’t be held accountable. They absolutely should. And when there’s documented evidence of misconduct, incompetence, or a failure to uphold the law, we should take it seriously.

But I don’t believe we should remove judges simply because we disagree with a ruling or their perceived political philosophy.

Judicial independence matters. An impartial judiciary matters. And sometimes protecting those institutions means being careful about who we’re giving the power to appoint their replacements.

My general position on judicial retention is pretty simple: I’m extremely cautious about removing judges.

Utah’s judicial appointment process gives the governor enormous influence over who sits on our courts, and voting not to retain a judge doesn’t mean voters get to choose someone better. It means creating a vacancy that gets filled through that same appointment process.

I have serious concerns about giving politicians more opportunities to reshape our judiciary, particularly when judicial independence is already under pressure.

That doesn’t mean judges shouldn’t be held accountable. They absolutely should. And when there’s documented evidence of misconduct, incompetence, or a failure to uphold the law, we should take it seriously.

But I don’t believe we should remove judges simply because we disagree with a ruling or their perceived political philosophy.

Judicial independence matters. An impartial judiciary matters. And sometimes protecting those institutions means being careful about who we’re giving the power to appoint their replacements.

My general position on judicial retention is that we should be very careful about removing judges, particularly given Utah’s judicial appointment process. Voting not to retain a judge doesn’t mean we get to choose their replacement. It means giving the governor and Legislature another opportunity to shape our courts.

But there is one judge in Weber County whose performance raises serious concerns: Judge Trent Nelson.

Of the 57 judges evaluated for retention this year, Nelson was the only one the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission recommended against retaining. All 13 commissioners agreed that he failed to meet performance standards, including concerns about legal ability, judicial temperament, and procedural fairness.

That’s not a disagreement over political philosophy. That’s an independent evaluation raising serious questions about how someone exercises judicial authority.

I believe judges deserve independence, but they also owe the public competence, fairness, and accountability. And when the people responsible for evaluating those standards unanimously raise concerns, we ought to pay attention.

My general position on judicial retention is pretty simple: I’m extremely cautious about removing judges.

Utah’s judicial appointment process gives the governor enormous influence over who sits on our courts, and voting not to retain a judge doesn’t mean voters get to choose someone better. It means creating a vacancy that gets filled through that same appointment process.

I have serious concerns about giving politicians more opportunities to reshape our judiciary, particularly when judicial independence is already under pressure.

That doesn’t mean judges shouldn’t be held accountable. They absolutely should. And when there’s documented evidence of misconduct, incompetence, or a failure to uphold the law, we should take it seriously.

But I don’t believe we should remove judges simply because we disagree with a ruling or their perceived political philosophy.

Judicial independence matters. An impartial judiciary matters. And sometimes protecting those institutions means being careful about who we’re giving the power to appoint their replacements.

My general position on judicial retention is pretty simple: I’m extremely cautious about removing judges.

Utah’s judicial appointment process gives the governor enormous influence over who sits on our courts, and voting not to retain a judge doesn’t mean voters get to choose someone better. It means creating a vacancy that gets filled through that same appointment process.

I have serious concerns about giving politicians more opportunities to reshape our judiciary, particularly when judicial independence is already under pressure.

That doesn’t mean judges shouldn’t be held accountable. They absolutely should. And when there’s documented evidence of misconduct, incompetence, or a failure to uphold the law, we should take it seriously.

But I don’t believe we should remove judges simply because we disagree with a ruling or their perceived political philosophy.

Judicial independence matters. An impartial judiciary matters. And sometimes protecting those institutions means being careful about who we’re giving the power to appoint their replacements.

My general position on judicial retention is pretty simple: I’m extremely cautious about removing judges.

Utah’s judicial appointment process gives the governor enormous influence over who sits on our courts, and voting not to retain a judge doesn’t mean voters get to choose someone better. It means creating a vacancy that gets filled through that same appointment process.

I have serious concerns about giving politicians more opportunities to reshape our judiciary, particularly when judicial independence is already under pressure.

That doesn’t mean judges shouldn’t be held accountable. They absolutely should. And when there’s documented evidence of misconduct, incompetence, or a failure to uphold the law, we should take it seriously.

But I don’t believe we should remove judges simply because we disagree with a ruling or their perceived political philosophy.

Judicial independence matters. An impartial judiciary matters. And sometimes protecting those institutions means being careful about who we’re giving the power to appoint their replacements.

My general position on judicial retention is pretty simple: I’m extremely cautious about removing judges.

Utah’s judicial appointment process gives the governor enormous influence over who sits on our courts, and voting not to retain a judge doesn’t mean voters get to choose someone better. It means creating a vacancy that gets filled through that same appointment process.

I have serious concerns about giving politicians more opportunities to reshape our judiciary, particularly when judicial independence is already under pressure.

That doesn’t mean judges shouldn’t be held accountable. They absolutely should. And when there’s documented evidence of misconduct, incompetence, or a failure to uphold the law, we should take it seriously.

But I don’t believe we should remove judges simply because we disagree with a ruling or their perceived political philosophy.

Judicial independence matters. An impartial judiciary matters. And sometimes protecting those institutions means being careful about who we’re giving the power to appoint their replacements.

My general position on judicial retention is pretty simple: I’m extremely cautious about removing judges.

Utah’s judicial appointment process gives the governor enormous influence over who sits on our courts, and voting not to retain a judge doesn’t mean voters get to choose someone better. It means creating a vacancy that gets filled through that same appointment process.

I have serious concerns about giving politicians more opportunities to reshape our judiciary, particularly when judicial independence is already under pressure.

That doesn’t mean judges shouldn’t be held accountable. They absolutely should. And when there’s documented evidence of misconduct, incompetence, or a failure to uphold the law, we should take it seriously.

But I don’t believe we should remove judges simply because we disagree with a ruling or their perceived political philosophy.

Judicial independence matters. An impartial judiciary matters. And sometimes protecting those institutions means being careful about who we’re giving the power to appoint their replacements.