DAR File No. 42337

Governor, Criminal and Juvenile Justice (State Commission on)

Section R356-2-10

Evaluation Criteria

Notice of Proposed Rule

(Amendment)

DAR File No.: 42337
Filed: 11/20/2017 01:27:57 PM

RULE ANALYSIS

Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:

This rule establishes evaluation criteria of applicants for judicial office. This amendment includes three additional evaluation criteria.

Summary of the rule or change:

This amendment provides three additional evaluation criteria to be used by members of the judicial nominating commissions: 1) interest in, understanding of, and experience with issues facing children and families when evaluating applicants for juvenile court; 2) ability to give and receive criticism of opinions and arguments without taking offense when evaluating applicants for appellate courts; and 3) the background and experience of applicants in relation to the current composition of the bench when applicants' qualifications appear comparable in other respects.

Statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:

• Section 78A-10-103

Anticipated cost or savings to:

the state budget:

This amendment will likely not result in a cost or savings to the state budget. The rule is updated to clarify evaluation criteria.

local governments:

This amendment will likely not result in a cost or savings to local governments. The rule is updated to clarify evaluation criteria.

small businesses:

This amendment will likely not result in a cost or savings to small businesses. The rule is updated to clarify evaluation criteria.

persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local governmental entities:

This amendment will likely not result in a cost or savings to persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local government entities. The rule is updated to clarify evaluation criteria.

Compliance costs for affected persons:

This amendment will likely not result in compliance costs for affected persons. The rule is updated to clarify evaluation criteria.

Comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses:

After conducting a thorough analysis, it was determined that this amendment would not result in a fiscal impact to businesses.

Ron Gordon, Executive Director

The full text of this rule may be inspected, during regular business hours, at the Office of Administrative Rules, or at:

Governor
Criminal and Juvenile Justice (State Commission on)
Room Suite 330 Senate Building
State Capitol Complex
350 North State Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84114

Direct questions regarding this rule to:

• Holly Langton at the above address, by phone at 801-538-1050, by FAX at , or by Internet E-mail at hlangton@utah.gov

Interested persons may present their views on this rule by submitting written comments to the address above no later than 5:00 p.m. on:

01/16/2018

This rule may become effective on:

01/23/2018

Authorized by:

Ronald Gordon, Executive Director

Appendix: Regulatory Impact Analysis for Small and Non - Small Businesses

	FY 2018	FY 2019	FY 2020
Fiscal Costs
State Government	$0	$0	$0
Local Government	$0	$0	$0
Small Businesses	$0	$0	$0
Non-Small Businesses	$0	$0	$0
Other Persons	$0	$0	$0
Total Fiscal Costs:	$0	$0	$0
Fiscal Benefits
State Government	$0	$0	$0
Local Government	$0	$0	$0
Small Businesses	$0	$0	$0
Non-Small Businesses	$0	$0	$0
Other Persons	$0	$0	$0
Total Fiscal Benefits:	$0	$0	$0
Net Fiscal Benefits:	$0	$0	$0

 

The total fiscal costs is the sum of all the fiscal costs.

The total fiscal benefits is the sum of all the fiscal benefits.

The net fiscal benefits is total fiscal benefits minus total fiscal costs.

 

 

R356. Governor, Criminal and Juvenile Justice (State Commission on).

R356-2. Judicial Nominating Commissions.

R356-2-10. Evaluation Criteria.

(1) In addition to criteria established by the Utah Constitution and the Utah Code Annotated, commission members shall during the nomination process consider the applicants':

(a) integrity;

(b) legal knowledge and ability;

(c) professional experience;

(d) judicial temperament;

(e) work ethic;

(f) financial responsibility;

(g) public service;

(h) ability to perform the work of a judge; and

(i) impartiality.

(2) When evaluating applicants for a juvenile court judge position, commission members shall consider the applicants' interest in, understanding of, and experience with the issues and problems facing children and families.

(3) When evaluating applicants for an appellate court position, commission members shall consider the applicants' ability to give and receive criticism of opinions and arguments without taking offense.

(4) When deciding among applicants for any judicial position whose qualifications, taken as a whole, appear in all other respects to be comparable, it is relevant to consider the background and experience of the applicants in relation to the current composition of the bench for which the appointment is being made.

(5) Unless otherwise provided by statute, members of trial court nominating commissions may not decline to interview an applicant or decline to nominate an applicant based primarily on the geographic location of the applicant's residence or the geographic location of the applicant's employment.

 

KEY: judicial nominating commissions, judges

Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: [August 10, 2016]2018

Notice of Continuation: June 26, 2015

Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 78A-10-103(1)