In an order issued Saturday, Utah’s highest court gave the plaintiffs in the redistricting lawsuit — the League of Women Voters of Utah, Mormon Women for Ethical Government, and several Salt Lake County voters — until Tuesday to file a response to lawmakers’ appeal. Legislative attorneys will then have until Thursday to file a response.
The Utah Supreme Court’s order came just a day after legislative attorneys filed their petition on Friday, while also asking the court to grant or deny their motion no later than Sept. 15 given the tight timeline the Utah Legislature now faces to draw a new map by Sept. 25 in time for the 2026 elections.
“Because the district court refused to stay its permanent injunction (on the 2021 congressional map), the Legislature must take steps right now to plan and conduct a special session in time to publish an alternative map by September 25 using a process that does not fully comply with Proposition 4,” legislative attorneys wrote in their request for expedited consideration.
They argued the time constraints “only heighten the separation-of-powers harms to the Legislature” inflicted by 3rd District Judge Dianna Gibson’s order and it “disregards what the district court has determined is the proper will of the people.”
Gibson last week ruled the 2021 map was the product of an unconstitutional process after the Utah Legislature repealed and replaced Better Boundaries’ 2018 voter-approved ballot initiative known as Proposition 4 that created an independent redistricting commission. By passing SB200, the GOP-controlled Utah Legislature turned that commission into an advisory body that lawmakers could ultimately ignore — which is what they did when they drew the 2021 congressional map that anti-gerrymandering groups have called “blatant gerrymandering.”
Attorneys for the Legislature are asking the Utah Supreme Court to overturn — or at least temporarily block — Gibson’s Aug. 25 ruling tossing out the state’s 2021 congressional boundaries and ordering the Utah Legislature to draw a new map.
Legislative attorneys are appealing to the same court that handed them a major blow last summer, when all five justices on the Utah Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion that Gibson — who had previously dismissed the claim that the Legislature violated the constitution when it repealed and replaced Better Boundaries’ ballot initiative — had erred. That ruling also made clear that the Utah Legislature did not have unfettered power to repeal and replace all types of voter initiatives, but rather must show a “compelling government interest” in order to change “government reform” initiatives.
In their appeal to the Utah Supreme Court on Friday, lawmakers’ attorneys argued the process Gibson has laid out to draw the new congressional map only follows parts of Proposition 4 — not all of it — and should therefore be overturned.
“The people of Utah can have new congressional maps in place for the 2026 congressional elections. Or they can have new congressional maps resulting from a process that follows all of Proposition 4, which the district court has concluded now governs redistricting in
Utah,” legislative attorneys wrote in their petition. “But given the election calendar, Utahns cannot have both.”
The lieutenant governor’s office has said the latest possible date for the court to choose a new congressional map — whether it’s one drawn by the Utah Legislature or one proposed by lawsuit’s plaintiffs — is Nov. 10, so counties will have enough time to finalize their precincts before candidates can begin filing in January.
Drawing new maps in complete accordance with Proposition 4 — which outlines an extensive public process — “will take longer than that,” legislative attorneys wrote.
“Thus forced to choose, Plaintiffs sacrificed Proposition 4’s means for their preferred ends. To them, having new maps for the 2026 congressional elections matters more than complying with all of Proposition 4. The district court agreed and effectively excised the Independent Redistricting Commission process,” legislative attorneys wrote.
They argued that “improper exercise of equitable power evinces a mismatch between the district court’s merits conclusion and its remedy — and suggests that claims Plaintiffs have repeated about Proposition 4 since this lawsuit started constitute little more than window dressing.”
“But eschewing complete compliance, the district court’s remedial order takes a cafeteria
approach to the redistricting law it has just reinstated in full, picking and choosing what sections really matter,” they wrote. “The remedial order avoids some parts of Proposition 4 as statutory empty calories: the commission is not necessary, the Legislature need not take an up-or-down vote on the commission’s recommendations, and the Legislature doesn’t need to explain why its map is better than the commission’s recommendations.”
It’s a similar argument legislative attorney Tyler Green made during a hearing Aug. 29, when he had urged the judge to pause her ruling that tossed out the 2021 map. Last week, Gibson denied that request, saying delaying the order would “sanction the wholesale repeal of Proposition 4 and would irreparably harm the people of Utah.”
Mark Gaber, an attorney with Campaign Legal Center that’s representing the plaintiffs, argued that had the Utah Legislature not unconstitutionally repealed and replaced Proposition 4 in the first place, the matter wouldn’t have landed in court. He also argued that Utah is not unique, and that other states have faced court-imposed deadlines because they’ve failed to properly adopt maps under their own redistricting processes.
“This is something that happens when a map violates the law,” Gaber said.
Utah’s court-ordered redistricting process comes during a time when fights over mid-decade redistricting are on the national stage, fueled by President Donald Trump’s aim to bolster the U.S. House’s slim Republican majority in the 2026 midterms.
In her order last week, Gibson said Utah “has an opportunity to be different” in its redistricting process.
“While other states are currently redrawing their congressional plans to intentionally render some citizen votes meaningless,” she wrote. “Utah could redesign its congressional plan with an intention to protect its citizens’ right to vote and to ensure that each citizen’s vote is meaningful.”
This report was originally published at UtahNewsDispatch.com.
