- A judge ordered the Utah Legislature to redraw congressional boundaries within 30 days.
- The ruling enforces Proposition 4, creating an independent redistricting commission in Utah.
- Judge Dianna Gibson's decision highlights the ongoing national debate on gerrymandering practices.
SALT LAKE CITY — More than a year after the Utah Supreme Court said lawmakers overreached by changing a ballot initiative on redistricting, a lower court judge ruled Monday that the current maps can't be used "in any future elections" and gave lawmakers 30 days to enact new political boundaries that comply with the initiative creating an independent redistricting commission.
The decision comes amid an ongoing national debate about gerrymandering, as Texas Republicans are poised to redraw the state's maps in an effort to pick up more Republican seats going into the 2026 midterms, and California has taken steps to retaliate.
In a 76-page ruling issued Monday evening, 3rd District Judge Dianna Gibson wrote that Proposition 4 is the law of the land in Utah, despite a 2021 law altering it.
"Here, allowing HB2004, the product of an unconstitutional act, to be used in the upcoming 2026 election is harm that is irreparable," Gibson wrote, referring to the law that created the current political boundaries. "There is no other remedy, monetary or otherwise, that could rectify the violation of the people's fundamental right to alter or reform their government. In fact, by not enjoining it, this court would be sanctioning it."
Gibson sided with plaintiffs, including several voters along with the League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government, who had argued that changing the initiative violated the rights of Utah voters. The judge issued a permanent injunction on the maps, without which she wrote: "another election cycle will proceed in defiance of the will of the people, as expressed in Proposition 4."
"An injunction against HB2004 is in the public interest because it is the only remedy that will enforce Proposition 4 going forward and prevent the continued violation of the people's constitutional rights," she wrote.
Top lawmakers responded Monday night saying they would review the decision but didn't say whether they planned to appeal the decision.
"While disappointed by the court's decision, we remain committed to protecting the voices of Utahns and upholding the Legislature's state and federal constitutional authority to draw congressional districts," Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, and House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, said in a joint statement. "We will carefully review the ruling and consider our next steps."
Plaintiffs and their supporters were elated Monday evening, calling it a "watershed moment" and "major win, not just for the plaintiffs, but for the voters of Utah."
"We are thrilled that the court has reaffirmed what we have known all along: that the people have co-equal lawmaking authority with the Legislature, that the Legislature violated the Utah Constitution when they overturned Proposition 4 and that Utahns deserve fair, independent maps they voted for almost seven years ago," Elizabeth Rasmussen, executive director of Better Boundaries, said during a press conference outside the Matheson Courthouse.
Better Boundaries was the group behind the 2018 initiative, and Rasmussen thanked all those who helped the proposition gain ballot access and pass.
"This victory belongs to you," she said. "Better Boundaries is founded on the principle that Utahns deserve a real voice in their government, and today's ruling gets us one step closer to making that vision a reality."
What the ruling says
In her ruling, Gibson laid out a process by which lawmakers should enact new maps that would comply with Proposition 4 by Nov. 1, in time for next year's midterms. Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, the state's top election official, said in court filings that any new maps should be approved by then in order to avoid any confusion about which maps are valid.
The court proposed the following timeline to lay out what should happen next:
- Lawmakers have 30 days, or until Sept. 24, to "design and enact a remedial congressional map that complies with the mandatory redistricting standards and requirements originally established under Proposition 4." Gibson ordered lawmakers to provide their new maps to the court by the end of day on Sept. 24, "or within 24 hours of enacting the new congressional map, whichever occurs earlier."
- The plaintiffs and other third parties can also submit remedial maps to the court for consideration within 30 days.
- Plaintiffs and others have until 11:59 p.m. on Oct. 3 to file objections with new maps enacted by lawmakers or proposed by others.
- An evidentiary hearing will be scheduled between Oct. 9 and Oct. 14.
Parties on both sides will meet Friday to discuss the proposed schedule for moving forward.
The decision is years in the making: Plaintiffs first sued the Legislature in 2022, alleging that lawmakers violated Utahns' rights to participate in free elections by ignoring voting maps recommended by an independent redistricting commission. That commission was created through the voter-approved Proposition 4 in 2018, but the Legislature watered down the commission's role to an advisory one two years later and adopted its own set of maps in 2021.
The current map splits Salt Lake County — the state's most populous county — between Utah's four congressional districts, eliminating what was a somewhat competitive district in favor of four districts that each skew heavily Republican.
Because the Utah Constitution gives "the people of the state of Utah" equal lawmaking power to the state Legislature, the plaintiffs said, the Legislature acted unconstitutionally when it changed the proposition.
The Utah Supreme Court ruled last summer that lawmakers overreached by changing the initiative, with Justice Paige Petersen writing that "constitutional provisions limit the Legislature's authority to amend or repeal an initiative that reforms the government."
She later added that the Alter or Reform Clause of the Utah Constitution "demonstrates that the people's exercise of their right to reform the government through an initiative is constitutionally protected from government infringement, including legislative amendment or repeal that impairs the intended reform."
The high court didn't rule on the merits of the case, however, instead sending it back down to the 3rd District for litigation. Monday's ruling is likely to be appealed and could end up in front of the Supreme Court before all is said and done.
Ruling prompts celebration, condemnation
Monday's decision was met almost immediately with celebration from some and anger from others. Republicans in the Legislature have butted heads with the Supreme Court since last summer, and the Utah Republican Party was quick to say the ruling was flawed.
"Once again, certain members of Utah's judiciary abandon the principles of our constitutional republic," said party Chairman Rob Axson. "Using earlier flawed rulings to justify their opinions over the principles of our founding is a special kind of hubris — judicial activism in action!"
At least one GOP state lawmaker, Rep. Trevor Lee, R-Layton, responded to news of the ruling on social media, suggesting the Legislature will appeal to the Supreme Court. In another post he added: "The Constitution is very clear. The judiciary cannot assume the Legislature's responsibility."
Senate Democrats from Utah hailed the decision as "a major victory for Utahns and for our democracy," especially in light of the nationwide fight over boundaries.
"This decision offers hope amid a national wave of aggressive partisan gerrymandering," the caucus said in a statement. "We are encouraged to see Utah's judicial system setting a standard for the nation. As we move forward, we call on our colleagues across the aisle to embrace this ruling and work together to create fair congressional maps that reflect the will of the people."
Sen. Nate Blouin, D-Millcreek, called it a "great day" for Utah, but suggested lawmakers wouldn't go down without a fight. After having a couple of decisions go against them last summer, lawmakers ran a slew of bills earlier this year meant to exert more control over the judiciary, which were broadly viewed as an attempt to rein in judges they disagreed with.
"This is a full win for Utahns and a big loss for the Legislature," Blouin said on social media. "Expect to see the supermajority expeditiously move to sanction judges and fight against implementing this decision, which resulted from a majority vote of the people seven years ago."
