Last month, Fix the Court scored a major victory when Utah, a state that previously had not required judicial financial disclosures at all, began considering H.B. 540, a bill that, in part, establishes a new disclosure requirement for judges.

This week, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox signed this bill, cementing this leap forward.

The law requires the Utah Judicial Council to implement annual financial disclosure rules for judges and court commissioners, with reports to be made publicly available online. Judges will have to report their board positions, investments, non-investment income, real estate and spouses’ jobs and will have to affirm, under penalty, that all the information is accurate.

While not fully comprehensive, this represents a major improvement for judicial transparency in a state that previously lacked such requirements.

H.B. 540 also mandates the creation of a centralized, statewide website for public court records. The system must allow users to search by party name, judge, attorney, case number and other criteria, and generally prohibits fees for access, searches and downloads (with some exceptions). As a drawback, the law requires user registration — including disclosure of identity, address, and citizenship status – to access the database.

In addition, the bill requires that audio recordings of all public court proceedings be made public upon request (also with some exceptions).

Finally, the legislation includes a two-year cooling-off period restricting former judges from working at law firms that bring suits against the state, aimed at reducing conflicts of interest.

The provisions of H.B. 540 raise Utah’s score to 21 according to our “Sorry State” criteria, established in our 2024 report. Why 21 points? The report is online, so that’s 10 points, and the content of the reports — board positions, investments, non-investment income, real estate and spouses’ jobs — comprise the other 11 points (5.5 x 2).

Now, the only state that still does not require judicial financial disclosures is neighboring Idaho. Earlier this year, we contacted Idaho court officials to ask when they might wish to take steps toward adding disclosures, but we have not yet received a reply.

We plan to continue focusing on Idaho, as we consider nationwide judicial transparency to be a top priority.