- Utah lawmakers must submit new congressional maps by Sept. 25, following a court ruling.
- Judge Dianna Gibson ordered adherence to independent redistricting principles following a lawsuit over 2021 maps.
- Plaintiffs have until Oct. 6 to propose alternative remedial maps to the court.
SALT LAKE CITY — State lawmakers will have until Sept. 25 to publish new congressional district map proposals, according to a stipulation between state attorneys and plaintiffs who sued the Legislature over political boundaries drawn in 2021.
The condensed timeline for updating the maps for Utah's four congressional seats comes after 3rd District Judge Dianna Gibson tossed the current maps and ordered lawmakers to adopt new maps that adhere to the principles established in a citizen initiative on independent redistricting. Gibson initially proposed that lawmakers have 30 days, or until Sept. 24, to draw new maps, but attorneys for both sides agreed to give the Legislature until Sept. 25 to publish new maps.
The agreement was filed in court Thursday, outlining the process over the next couple of months to redraw the boundaries Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson has asked that new maps be in place no later than Nov. 10 in order to give election officials and candidates time to prepare for next year's midterm elections.
Gibson's ruling said if lawmakers don't approve a map that meets the requirements by the deadline, the court could pick a map submitted by the plaintiffs or the public at large. As part of the stipulation, both parties agreed that map submissions "be limited to the existing parties in this case," but added that third parties can submit proposals and comments during the legislative process.
Lawmakers also stipulated that they would not waive their rights to appeal the case, leaving the option open to ask the Utah Supreme Court to overturn Gibson's ruling.
The agreed-upon timeline gives lawmakers until Oct. 6 to adopt a final map, and it gives the plaintiffs until then to submit their own maps to the courts. If the plaintiffs have any issues with the Legislature's proposal, the stipulation agreement includes dates for a follow-up evidentiary hearing to determine if the new maps follow the guidelines set out by the Better Boundaries initiative. Plaintiffs will "timely communicate" to the court if they do not have any objection to the legislatively enacted map.
Here is a full timeline of the process moving forward:
- Sept. 25: Legislature to publish proposed maps.
- Sept. 26-Oct. 5: Public comment period.
- Oct. 6: Legislature's final vote on the map and submission of the map to the court. Plaintiffs' deadline to submit any proposed map to the court.
- Oct. 17: Parties file briefs, expert reports and other materials in support of respective map submissions and in opposition to any map submissions, if necessary.
- Oct. 23-24: Evidentiary hearing, if necessary.
- Oct. 28: Parties file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with the court, if necessary.
In a separate court filing Thursday, attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that because the maps drawn by lawmakers in 2021 were thrown out, the previously drawn map from 2011 "is currently the legally operative congressional map." Because of population changes, those maps are no longer equally apportioned, diluting the voting power of some residents, the attorneys argued.
The plaintiffs asked the court to add a backstop and "impose an equally apportioned map that complies with Proposition 4's requirements in the event the Legislature fails to enact a remedial map or such map is enjoined as violative of Proposition 4's requirements or other legal requirements in conjunction with the upcoming remedial proceeding."
