Despite opposition from the courts, the Utah State Bar and the American Civil Liberties Union, a Senate committee on Friday advanced a bill that would empower the governor to pick the chief justice of the Utah Supreme Court.

A slightly revised SB109 passed 4-2 along party lines, with both Democrats on the Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee voting against it. Sen. Lyle Hillyard, a Logan Republican and attorney, said he believes the bill needs additional work but broke the tie so that it wouldn't stall in committee.

Currently, the justices elect their own chief, and opponents say changing that would impair the independence of the high court, politicize the selection process and create dissension.

The bill's sponsor, Senate Majority Leader Scott Jenkins, R-Plain City, came up with a new rationale for the bill on Friday, saying it strengthens the checks and balances between the different branches of government.

Jenkins said the bill -- now headed for the full Senate -- also seeks to reduce "serious conflicts" that might arise between the justices.

"When five strong individuals are forced to compete, feathers get ruffled, egos get bruised and bones get broken, figuratively speaking," Jenkins told the committee. "Future justices will not harbor as much resentment toward each other."

Jenkins said his substitute bill resolves a concern that justices seeking to be chief justice might try to curry favor with the governor. It does that, he said, by extending the chief justice's term from four to six years, two years longer than a governor's term.

But Justice Jill Parrish told lawmakers that increasing the term of office would only prolong dysfunction within the court if the governor happens to appoint a chief not supported by the other justices.

Parrish wondered how the governor would make his selection: Pick a name from a hat? Consult political constituents? Read the court's opinions?

She added that the governor wouldn't know if "they have the energy, or desire or capability to be chief."

Parrish said being chief justice is like having two full-time jobs because he or she writes legal opinions and also presides over the Judicial Council, which makes court rules and allocates the court's budget. Parrish said that because she has a family at home, she has no wish to be chief.

ACLU attorney Marina Lowe spoke in opposition to the bill, saying it violates constitutional provisions for the separation of powers.

Attorney Scott Sabey, a member of the Utah State Bar Commission and a former member of the Judicial Council, said the Bar is against the bill.

Sabey noted that the governor already appoints seven members of each eight-member judicial nominating commission, as well as picking the judicial nominee who is subject to final Senate confirmation.

"Once a judge is chosen, the politics should end at that point," Sabey said.

Freshman Sen. Ben McAdams, D-Salt Lake City and an attorney, said the proposed change would "diminish the stature of a co-equal branch of government" and "have a chilling effect on our courts."

McAdams questioned the need for a switch, saying, "I haven't heard of a problem that needs balancing."

Committee Chairman Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain, asked if judicial independence isn't compromised by the elections for chief justice that now occur within the court.

"To keep your spot you have to have a consensus of three. It's still a campaign. You're still trying to please people," said Madsen, also an attorney.

Parrish responded that because a judge has no constituent other than the law, those elections involve "politics with a small p."

But if the authority to appoint the chief resides outside the court, "politics with a big P may exist," she said.

Madsen also wondered if it wouldn't be better for the court's congeniality to take the selection out of the hands of the justices.

Parrish replied that members of the high court have the maturity to "move on" after an election.

"It's the same as in the Senate [elections for leaders]," Parrish said. "There's a winner and a loser and it doesn't mean the Senate is dysfunctional."

shunt@sltrib.com