Month: February 2025

New parents are careful who they invite into the hospital room after a delivery. Doctors and nurses have permission to enter. Friends and family, too. But what about police officers, for-profit research companies and the Pentagon?

Under state law, all of these third parties have backdoor access to the blood of every Utah child. The intrusion starts within 48 hours after birth, when maternity ward workers prick an infant’s heel to collect blood for laboratory testing.

The mandatory screening allows for early detection of rare conditions like cystic fibrosis and sickle cell disease. This testing is uncontroversial. All states do it — and the results no doubt save lives.

But afterward, rather than destroy the paper cards used to collect bloodspots, Utah keeps the samples without telling parents, creating a secretive database with potentially millions of entries.

Parents cannot opt out. Once the Utah Department of Health receives the paper cards, state law says the blood becomes the property of the state. If parents refuse to participate, they can face charges of medical neglect.

Utah currently keeps the blood for seven years. But information from the paper cards remains on file for 22 years. The state does not say precisely what happens during this period, but the potential for abuse is high.

Plaintiffs caught Texas officials turning over DNA data to the Pentagon for a national registry. Michigan was selling newborn blood for research. So was Minnesota. Court rulings forced all three of these states to stop.

More recently, New Jersey was caught turning over infant blood samples to police agencies without a warrant, leading to criminal charges for at least one father. Our public interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, represents New Jersey parents in a class-action lawsuit to stop the abuse.

Erica Jedynak and another New Jersey mom are leading the fight. Jedynak says she was blindsided when she learned the state was keeping her son’s blood for unknown purposes.

“There is something morally not right that the government would be tracking him or almost assuming the guilt of babies,” she says. “I have to protect him from what appears to be a very creepy database.”

The Constitution provides ammunition in her fight. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. If states want to keep blood in a government database, it can. But first, the state needs a warrant or parental consent.

The first option is a nonstarter. No judge would sign off when no crime has occurred. This just leaves consent. To satisfy the Constitution, this consent must be voluntary, informed and obtained before a state retains blood.

Some jurisdictions respect parental rights in this way. Indiana, for example, asks parents whether it can retain their children’s bloodspots for specific medical research purposes. If parents decline, their child’s bloodspot is destroyed.

Delaware and South Dakota enforce similar policies. But holdouts, including Utah and New Jersey, remain. In both states, the government has taken the choice about retention away from parents, claiming the government should automatically keep the blood of every child in a state-run facility.

Technically, New Jersey parents can opt out by asking the state to destroy the bloodspot. Utah previously allowed this, but the state no longer accepts requests for destruction because it says the policy is “undergoing legal review.”

Courts in other states have rejected the “opt-out” model. As a Michigan judge explains: “The silence of (parents) might well have been the product of the opacity of the system, the infants’ nascent existence in the world, or the result of the overwhelmed state of their new parents.”

In other words, parents cannot opt out of something they do not know exists.

Utah must fix its unconstitutional retention program. Blood belongs to the individual, not the state.

The Clippers also ship out a future second-round draft pick and cash in a deal that puts them below the luxury tax with an eye potentially toward the trade deadline.

Originally Published: February 1, 2025 at 2:59 PM PST

The Utah Legislature should refrain from “reforming” Utah’s excellent judicial selection and retention system.

Our “merit-based” system was adopted in 1985, the culmination of a long process begun in 1945 to establish a selection system devoid of partisan influence. Our Constitution requires selection of judges be “based solely upon consideration of fitness for office without regard to any partisan political consideration.” A nominating commission winnows applications and forwards a short list to the governor, who selects the final candidate, which the Senate must confirm.

The application process is robust. Applicants must not only give their education and work history but also provide judicial and attorney references — including lawyers who have been adverse to the applicant, and for judge applicants, attorneys who have appeared before them. After screening, the commission interviews applicants. Before certifying the list of nominees to the governor, the commission publishes the names for public comment and may remove a name if the commission receives new information that the applicant is unfit to serve as a judge.

Finally, all judges stand for retention election after a number of years. Before that retention election, there is a robust performance review conducted by the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, or JPEC. JPEC surveys lawyers, court staff and jurors; gathers data regarding judicial education, time standards and discipline; accepts public comments; and conducts courtroom observations. Judges are rated on a five-point scale regarding legal ability, integrity and temperament, administrative skills and procedural fairness, and a ranking of 3.6 or higher is required to meet the standards for retention. Commissioners use a “blind” evaluation process in reviewing materials and voting on whether each judge has met the standards for retention. All this material is made available to the public prior to a retention election. Judges may decide not to stand for retention election after they have reviewed their performance evaluations and JPEC’s recommendation.

Utah’s system of selection, review and retention is a national model. Professor Jordan Singer, consultant for the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, states:

“The Utah Legislature wisely committed to a comprehensive judicial performance evaluation program. That program is a national leader today, helping Utah’s judges improve on the bench and helping Utah’s citizens maintain the accountability of their judiciary. The JPEC is an outstanding model of thoughtfulness, balance, and vigilance in the service of the broader public. Utah has a remarkably effective and trustworthy system for selecting, training, and maintaining the accountability of its judges.”

Forty years ago, I moved to Utah to oversee the University of Utah College of Law internship program, which I did for over three decades. Each semester, I received multiple reports from our students about their experiences and what they were learning. They were uniformly impressed that their judges were intelligent, hardworking, thoughtful and ethical, and came away from their internships with high respect for the jurists. Judges also made presentations to classes I taught. I was able to observe our judiciary from a unique perspective and was consistently favorably impressed by the high quality of our Utah judiciary.

Moving to an elected system would jettison all the merit-focused work of nonpartisan nominating commissions. It might mean fewer excellent people would be able to mount a campaign. It would surely require that funds be raised and time be spent campaigning, taking judges away from their central job. It would create ethical challenges, as judges could be asked to hear cases brought by companies or law firms who had contributed to their campaigns. Judges would have little incentive to participate in the judicial performance evaluation process, since their retention would be based in politics, not an objective assessment of their performance. Presumably judges would campaign on political positions thought to appeal to the public. But since the vast bulk of a judge’s or a justice’s work is not “political” in the traditional sense, such a system would risk reducing the quality of the judiciary for the possibility that more judges would have the “right” political views. This would be a step in the wrong direction.

The Utah Legislature should not try to fix a problem that doesn’t exist.

Clayton Keller had two assists while Nick Schmaltz and Alex Kerfoot scored for Utah (21-21-9), which has now lost four games in a row (0-2-2). Karel Vejmelka made 20 saves.

“It’s frustrating for sure,” said Keller. “I think we’ve talked about it. We’ve had the right mindset. We’ve just got to keep going, learn from it. Having confidence, believing you can make the play in the [third period]. I think that’s the next step.”

“Today we had seven scoring chances in the third period,” said Utah head coach Andre Tourigny. “We need to finish more. We need to find ways to take quality shots. We need to find ways to get on the rebound and hit nets and stuff like that. But there’s stuff we can do better.”

Schmaltz opened the scoring on the power play 41 seconds into the second period, as he took a pass from Barrett Hayton and beat Tarasov glove side to give Utah a 1-0 lead.

Kerfoot made it 2-0 Utah 29 seconds into the third period as he put in the rebound off a shot from John Marino.

“I think that last game we took a step, this game was all right,” said Kerfoot. “They got a couple bounces, and then that put us on our heels a bit, but we were still pushing. We controlled the majority of the game. We’ve got to find a way to get two points.”

Marchenko scored at 6:25 to cut the lead to 2-1, firing in a loose puck in the slot for the goal.

The sponsor of the school “reallocation/strategic reinvestment” legislation that’s gleaned attention for months calls Utah’s system of public college and universities “a huge blessing” to the state’s students and citizens.

But there’s room for improvement.

During her presentation Friday to the House Education Committee, Rep. Karen Peterson, R-Clinton, said HB265 asks a fundamental question: “How do we make a good system better.”

In the end, the bill prompted fairly limited debate from committee members and the public. By majority vote, the committee passed along the bill for an eventual vote on the House floor.

Friday’s successful presentation may have moved at a speedy clip, but Peterson’s Higher Education Strategic Reinvestment bill evolved slowly.

There were “months and months” of conversation and collaborations between lawmakers, the state’s higher education leaders and institution presidents, noted Peterson.

A few key developments in recent years were catalysts for HB265.

First, said Peterson, the state’s higher education budgets — including tuition and state appropriations — have almost doubled over the past decade.

The student population over the same period did not experience commensurate growth. Meanwhile, administrative costs at Utah’s colleges have jumped.

“We’re going to give (school presidents) the flexibility to make sure this matches their campus and their role and mission within our system.”

—  Rep. Karen Peterson, R-Clinton

Given those trends, Peterson and other lawmakers asked the school presidents and the state’s higher education leaders to examine two guiding questions:

First, are the programs in the state’s higher education system still meeting the needs of both students and the state?

And second, are there opportunities to cut some administrative costs and low-performing programs — and then reinvest those savings in programs that may have high capacity, long waiting lists or high industry demand in Utah.

Strategic reinvestment

HB265 begins by establishing a strategic reinvestment fund.

The state’s base budget approved by the House earlier this week removed $60 million from the combined budgets of Utah’s eight degree-granting colleges and universities. As expected, the amount “cut” from each institution’s state appropriation was different — a nod, in part, to each school’s unique size and mission.

The state’s flagship school, the University of Utah, for example, had $19.5 million pulled from its budget. The regional Southern Utah University had $3.1 million pulled. And the state’s largest two-year institution, Salt Lake Community College, had $5.2 million pulled.

But the dollars cut from each school’s budget are not necessarily lost.

The fiscal amount pulled from each school’s budget, explained Peterson, remains earmarked for that school “with the opportunity for them to have all those funds back as they work through a (reallocation) process.”

The appropriation dollars pulled from the schools’ budgets were moved to Utah Board of Higher Education, where it will go through an iterative process as each college or university develops their respective strategic reinvestment plans.

The institutions will then bring those plans to the board and then the Legislature to have those funds reallocated.

Peterson expects the institutions to begin presenting their plans to the board in July for approval, before moving them on to the Legislature.

“We’ll see those plans in higher education appropriations in August, according to the bill, and then the Executive Appropriations Committee will have a chance to review those and then release the funds back to the institutions for them to execute on those plans.”

Reallocation criteria

As institutions begin building their respective reallocation plans, they will evaluate factors such as enrollment, high-demand programs and job outcomes of graduates of specific programs “and then decide where they need to invest more — and where they don’t,” said Peterson.

The schools will also be looking at institutional structures and inefficiencies — seeking opportunities to, say, combine colleges or administrative positions.

“We’re going to give (school presidents) the flexibility to make sure this matches their campus and their role and mission within our system,” assured Peterson.

The second part of HB265 limits bachelor’s degrees to no more than 120 credit hours — with an exception that they can go up to 126 with board approval if they require accreditation or licensing.

Peterson noted that some degree programs have started to creep up to 140 credit hours.

The bill also tasks the Legislature to look at performance funding.

The state already has a uniform performance model — but the same model is used for every institution.

“It’s time for us to have a conversation about those performance metrics and really think thoughtfully about what we want each of these colleges and universities to do within our system and how we reward them — especially for completions of students and getting students through their programs,” said Peterson.

Ensuring higher ed’s high ROI

During Friday’s committee meeting, Utah’s commissioner of higher education, Geoffrey Landward saluted the Legislature and its ongoing investment in the state’s higher education system.

“We also recognize, as a system, that we don’t have unlimited resources for higher education, and we bear a significant stewardship as a board for these resources,” said Landward.

“Every dollar appropriated to higher education we recognize is $1 that’s not being appropriated to K-12 or social services or infrastructure,” he said. ”Knowing that, and feeling the weight of that responsibility, means that we have to ensure that every single dollar that is invested in higher education, whether that’s from the legislature or the students who are paying tuition, provides significant value to the students and to the state.”

Landward noted that the budget reallocations outlined in HB265 allow for a reasonable reallocation approach, “not catastrophic adjustments.”

The bill also provides institution presidents with the discretion that they need to craft a reinvestment plan within a matrix of several criteria — rather than a single formulaic approach.

There are also strategic allowances for nuances, such as the demand for durable skills that can come from general education and the liberal arts.

The bill also allows for a “teach out” period where students who are already enrolled in a degree program won’t be impacted by possible program cuts.

“We will continue our work as a system,” Landward concluded, “to try and ensure that the students who attend our institutions — and the taxpayers who support our institutions — are getting the very best and highest value.”

Jamie Martin is returning to Weber State.

On Friday, the school announced that the Wildcat quarterback legend and longtime NFL signal caller has been hired as an offensive analyst on head football coach Mickey Mental’s staff.

“I’m honored to be back at Weber State, a place I’ve always loved and rooted for,” Martin said in a statement. “I’m excited to support coach Mental and contribute to the success of the players and the program.”

Martin, who will be turning 55 next week, arrived at Weber State in 1989 from Arroyo Grande, California, and went on to win the Walter Payton Award, given to the top player in Division I-AA (now FCS), in 1991.

Additionally, Martin was a two-time All-American, two-time Big Sky MVP and is still Weber State’s all-time leader in total offense with 12,287 career yards.

In 2014, Martin’s No. 10 jersey was retired by Weber State.

Undrafted out of college, Martin stuck as a free agent with the Los Angeles Rams in 1993 and wound up playing 16 years in the NFL for the Los Angeles/St. Louis Rams (four different stints), Washington Redskins (now Commanders), Jacksonville Jaguars (two different stints), Cleveland Browns, New York Jets, New Orleans Saints and San Francisco 49ers.

In all, Martin played in 53 NFL games and threw for 3,814 yards with 20 touchdowns and 21 interceptions.

Since his NFL career, Martin has been involved in coaching and various business ventures. In 2023, Martin returned to Utah to become head coach of the Ogden Jets, a post-high school football team.

“We are very excited to bring back Jamie to his home,” Mental said in a statement. “He is obviously a very decorated player here at Weber State and had a long career in the NFL, and anytime you can bring someone with that experience, it will go a long way in helping our players. He has great football knowledge and will bring great ideas to our staff. We are really excited to have him join us.”