Can legislators constitutionally serve on Utah's Judicial Conduct Commission? In re Young Explained

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in In re Young provides a fascinating study of how historical context can dramatically alter constitutional interpretation. Initially, the Court unanimously held that legislative participation on the Judicial Conduct Commission violated Utah’s separation of powers clause. However, on rehearing, the Court reversed itself after reviewing previously unavailable historical materials.

Background and Facts

The case arose when District Judge David Young challenged the Commission’s authority to discipline him for inappropriate ex parte communications with an attorney. Young argued that the Commission’s composition—which included four legislators appointed by the Senate President and House Speaker—violated Article V, section 1 of the Utah Constitution. The Commission had recommended a public reprimand against Judge Young.

Key Legal Issues

The central constitutional question was whether the Judicial Conduct Commission performs functions “appertaining to” the judicial branch under Article V, section 1. This provision prohibits persons charged with exercising powers of one governmental department from exercising functions belonging to another, except where “expressly directed or permitted” by the constitution.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

On rehearing, the Court examined extensive historical evidence showing that the 1984 constitutional amendment creating the Commission was intended to preserve legislative participation. The Commission had operated with legislative members since 1971, and the Constitutional Revision Commission, legislature, and voters all understood that legislators would continue serving on the Commission. The Court concluded that the Commission performs a function that is “not exclusively judicial” and may be exercised collaboratively by multiple branches. Because the function is not exclusively judicial, it does not “appertain to” the judicial branch within the meaning of Article V, section 1.

Practice Implications

This decision demonstrates the critical importance of constitutional history in separation of powers analysis. The Court’s analytical framework requires determining whether challenged functions are “core,” “essential,” or “inherent” to a particular branch. Functions that are merely associated with a branch but not exclusive to it may be shared among departments. The decision also clarifies that not all boards or commissions with mixed membership violate separation of powers—only those exercising functions that are exclusively within one branch’s domain.