- Utah lawmakers unveiled five proposed maps for redrawing congressional districts for 2024 elections.
- Critics say a new bill undermines Proposition 4 by limiting fairness evaluations.
- Public comments on the maps and bill are open until Oct. 5 online.
SALT LAKE CITY — Utah lawmakers unveiled five proposed maps that could be used to redraw the state's congressional district boundaries for next year's midterm elections, kicking off a two-week process for lawmakers and the public to weigh in before a final version is adopted Oct. 6.
A Republican senator also introduced a bill that would select only one statistical measure to be used to determine whether the new maps meet requirements for "partisan symmetry," which critics said was only a narrow measure that could help allow the districts to be drawn to favor the GOP.
Some Republicans on the Legislative Redistricting Committee made clear they weren't happy to be redrawing the maps for Utah's four congressional districts and were only doing so because a judge threw out the previous maps that were created after lawmakers altered a 2018 ballot initiative to establish the Independent Redistricting Commission.
The Legislature tried to stop the redistricting from going forward, but the Utah Supreme Court denied its request to stay the lower court's ruling.
"This is unusual and, quite honestly, a first in our process of redistricting," committee co-chairman Sen. Scott Sandall, R-Tremonton, said of the process of redrawing the maps in the middle of a decade. "Some of the things that we're going to talk about today were not applicable when we last met, and we want to make sure that you understand that we are doing this in compliance with the courts' orders and under protest."
"But we want to make sure that we maintain our constitutional duty to produce a map, and so we are going to proceed in that direction right now," he added.
Elizabeth Rasmussen, the executive director of Better Boundaries, the group behind the initiative that established the redistricting commission, said she is "excited" that the process to redraw the maps is moving ahead, but expressed concern that lawmakers are trying to "cut at the heart of Proposition 4."
"We're just seeing that same thing happen again," she said, referring to the bill discussed Monday. "We hope that the Legislature will look at Proposition 4 as it was written and follow what it says and not try to change the rules at the last minute like they did before."
Lawmakers introduce 5 proposed maps
The committee made public five maps over the weekend ahead of Monday's hearing. The lawmakers on the panel will meet again on Wednesday to recommend a map for the full Legislature to consider during a special session on Oct. 6.
The entire process of redistricting was kicked off by an August ruling from 3rd District Judge Dianna Gibson throwing out the maps in use since 2021 because she said the lawmakers unconstitutionally changed Proposition 4, which was meant to create an independent redistricting commission and standards for map-drawing.
Gibson said the new maps were unconstitutional because they were drawn under SB200, through which the Legislature made the commission's role advisory, allowing the Legislature to adopt its own maps without considering the standards set out by Proposition 4.
Although the redistricting commission created by lawmakers through SB200 — which replaced Proposition 4 — drew several proposed maps in 2021, those maps cannot be used this time around because SB200 was found unconstitutional.
One of the standards set by Proposition 4 is that new political maps should minimize the division of counties, cities and towns, and they should preserve neighborhoods and other communities of interest. Plaintiffs who sued over the maps in 2022 included residents of Millcreek who argued their votes were being diluted because their city was split four ways.
Utah Legislative Redistricting Committee proposed maps 2025 by Bridger Beal-Cvetko
Salt Lake County is too big to fit inside its own congressional district, so the county must be split somewhere, and the five maps propose several different ways to divide the state's most populous counties along the Wasatch Front.
Lawmakers gave the public more than an hour to weigh in Monday afternoon, and some commenters said they were pleased the committee had done away with what some have called a "pizza" map that split Salt Lake County four ways.
But many still took issue with how the districts divided particular communities along the Wasatch Front. Map "Option E" places Orem in the 1st Congressional District while Provo is in the 3rd Congressional District, something one commenter implied was dividing a community of interest in Utah County.
"These maps honestly do not share the same interests," said Kiersten Stapley, of Logan. "I think that it's unfair to the rural people of Utah that they have to be represented by somebody living on the Wasatch Front, which they still are. I think that these maps honestly seek to maintain the status quo and that the same four people that are representing us right now will keep their seats."
The maps were drawn by a contractor hired by lawmakers and were made without using political data, per the standards of Proposition 4. The committee chairman urged members not to discuss any partisan data related to the maps, and said public comments would be sorted based on whether they mentioned how each party might benefit from the results. Those public comments will still be collected, but he cautioned lawmakers against using partisan comments to make their decisions.
All five proposed maps have been posted to the Legislature's redistricting website, where members of the public can weigh in for the next two weeks. You can find links to the individual maps and public comment sections below:
Opponents criticize 'narrow' method to determine fairness of maps
Proposition 4 directs lawmakers to determine whether their maps conform to the redistricting standards by using "judicial standards and the best available data and scientific and statistical methods, including measures of partisan symmetry." Gibson's ruling agreed and stated that lawmakers retain responsibility for deciding which tests to use to determine fairness.
Although the map-drawing cannot be done using partisan data, an analysis will be run on the resulting maps to ensure that they don't disproportionately favor or disfavor a certain political party.
Sen. Brady Brammer, R-Highland, proposed a bill to the committee that would limit that evaluation to just one test, known as the partisan bias test. That means taking the average partisan vote share of five statewide races — for president, governor, attorney general, state treasurer and state auditor — from the previous three election cycles and comparing it to the new congressional districts.
Using that test, the maps would be considered unbiased as long as the margins favoring Republicans in each of the four congressional districts are smaller than the average statewide margin of victory. Based on that standard, the Republican-dominated Legislature could give the GOP advantages of at least 25 points in each district and still consider the maps to be fair.
Brammer said his plan is meant to create "certainty" about what the standards for fair maps are going forward.
"I don't think the goal of Prop 4 was to push every single map in all circumstances always to a court," he said. "We want to create certainty so that ... moving forward our courts are not in the middle of every controversy related to redistricting maps."
Several Democrats and members of the public pushed back on the bill, however, arguing that the partisan bias test is flawed given the relatively small number of districts in Utah, and that lawmakers should consider a broad array of statistical tests to identify various potential biases.
"One concern I have is that the court said, 'Legislature, go back and comply with the requirements in Prop 4,'" said Rep. Doug Owens, D-Millcreek. "The first thing out of the chute this morning is us changing the requirements of Prop 4. ... The language of Prop 4 is wide open about what we consider, and now we're going to try to with this bill, constrain it to one single test."
Senate Minority Leader Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City, said Proposition 4 didn't limit lawmakers to picking only one test and argued that other measures of fairness should be considered.
"It concerns me when we're saying, 'Oh, we're running the test, and we're running a pass or fail grade'" as to whether the maps are fair, she said. "You're now trying to codify partisan bias as the only test to use, and that to me is a gigantic red flag."
Public commenters who addressed the proposed bill were unanimously against it, with some saying it again was an attempt to weaken Proposition 4.
"The whole reason why we are here is because of the Legislature adjusting and repealing, amending Proposition 4 with Senate Bill 200," said Dillan Burnett, of West Jordan. "The Legislature could find itself in another lawsuit with (Brammer's bill)."
Rasmussen was also concerned with the single test, arguing that because no test is perfect, multiple measures are needed to assess fairness.
"By changing the very definition of what was in Prop 4, it completely cuts out the intent of the bill and makes it so they can cherry pick a test that fits ... what they deem as to be most important," she said, "when broadly, you need to use multiple tests in order to see what fairness really is."
Lawmakers plan to meet next month for a special session to adopt a map, during which they could also vote on Brammer's bill. Because it is in special session, the entire Legislature could consider the bill even if it isn't approved by a committee.
The redistricting committee adjourned after public comment Monday without taking any action on the bill or on the maps, but will reconvene Wednesday at 11 a.m. to move forward. Online public comment will remain open through Oct. 5.
