The Senate reconfirmation vote would apply to judges at all levels — district court, juvenile court, Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.

Currently, after a judge is confirmed to the bench the first time by the Senate, he serves a three-year term. After winning retention at the ballot box, the judge then serves six-year terms. (Supreme Court justices serve 10-year terms.) If a judge gets less than 50 percent of the vote in a retention election, he is denied another term on the bench.

Some lawmakers have talked about raising the retention vote threshold.

But Buttars said he isn't going to try to raise the retention vote. "That is not effective because people don't know of these bad decisions. We want to get at the accountability of some of these decisions." And coming back through the Senate confirmation process is the best way to do that, he said

But Durham asked: "Who would define what a "bad" decision is? Our job is to review trial judges' decisions. When they don't apply the law or define the facts based on evidence, then those decisions are reversed."

Richard Schwermer, Assistant State Court Administrator, thinks Buttars' idea has constitutional problems.

"The (Utah State) Constitution says the governor has his role to play, in nominating. The Senate has its role to play, in confirming," he said. But nowhere in the constitution does it say that the Senate gets another shot at a judge in the retention process.

"This is a really bad idea," said Scott Daniels, a former president of the Utah State Bar, former Democratic legislator and former 3rd District judge. "This goes in the wrong direction. We want to keep judges away from political pressure, not closer to it."

Besides any constitutional concerns, "from a practical matter you would not get very qualified people to even apply to be a judge."

Attorneys seeking the bench give up their legal firm partnerships, give up their clients, with the knowledge that they will probably win judicial retention for as long as they want to be a judge, said Daniels. "If you did something that displeased the power brokers (in the Senate), you would be out of office, without a practice, without clients. You'd have to start your practicing career all over again. Who would risk that?"

"People are just not aware of some of these judges' terrible decisions. If they had to come back before the Senate, I would make sure all of the material (in controversial decisions) is public and people would know" before they went to vote for the judge in a retention election, Buttars said.

But people don't know now, he said, "and very, very few of the judges are removed" through the ballot box.