- Federal judges declined to block Utah's new congressional map for 2026 elections.
- A three-judge panel said the plaintiffs, including Utah Reps. Maloy and Owens, were unlikely to succeed in their claims.
- Judge Tymkovich criticized timing issues by a Utah judge in the ongoing redistricting case.
SALT LAKE CITY — A panel of federal judges has rejected a request to block Utah's new congressional map from being used during the 2026 midterm elections, dealing another blow to the Utah Legislature just days after Utah's Supreme Court also refused to block the map.
In a decision issued Monday, a three-judge panel convened by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the request from multiple elected officials and voters, including Reps. Celeste Maloy and Burgess Owens, who had sued Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson over the use of the map in the upcoming election cycle.
Two of the judges cited what is known as the Purcell principle, which states that "federal courts ordinarily should not alter state election rules in the period close to an election."
"(T)he possibility of voter confusion is a considerable risk were the panel to enjoin the current election map," their opinion states. "Here, an active primary is ongoing, and the election has drawn too close for the court to get involved."
The third judge disagreed that the Purcell principle would prevent the court from intervening, but agreed with the others on the panel who found the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims. The plaintiffs argued the map adopted by 3rd District Judge Dianna Gibson should be thrown out because only state lawmakers have the power to set political boundaries.
While the Utah Constitution does give that power to the Legislature, the federal panel said courts can intervene and approve a remedial map if lawmakers have not followed the law.
"We receive today's decision with profound disappointment but respect for the court's careful review," said Maloy, Owens and the other plaintiffs in a statement to KSL. "This case concerns the Constitution's allocation of authority over federal elections, a question of lasting importance beyond any single election cycle."
This is the latest step in a yearslong battle over redistricting maps, dating back to 2018 when Proposition 4 was passed by Utah voters. That initiative created an independent commission to recommend new political boundaries to lawmakers every 10 years while setting standards to avoid gerrymandering by not favoring one political party over another.
After the GOP-controlled Legislature weakened the commission and chose maps of its own, voter groups sued, leading Gibson to throw out Utah's congressional map. Utah lawmakers drew another one, but the judge rejected it, saying it unfairly favored Republicans. In November, Gibson then adopted a new map — which was submitted by plaintiffs — which created a Democratic-leaning district in Salt Lake County.
"Utah voters should not have to navigate uncertainty to participate in fair elections," said Katharine Biele, president of League of Women Voters of Utah, one of the groups that originally sued. "We are pleased the court protected this fair map and we remain focused on protecting voters' ability to make their voices heard."
In rejecting the request to block Utah's new congressional map, the 10th Circuit Court pointed to a 2003 case from Mississippi which it said "instructs that state courts ought to undertake the task of drawing a map themselves in the narrow circumstances when no other options are on the table and a legislature has failed to produce a properly apportioned map (as in this case)."
The court decision Monday came following a hearing last week and was issued on the deadline the lieutenant governor had set for a decision to give her office time to adopt any changes ahead of the congressional filing deadline next month.
Yet, while agreeing with the decision not to block the new congressional map, 10th Circuit Judge Timothy Tymkovich expressed "reservations" about the case, particularly Gibson's decision to drag it out over more than a year and then wait until the last minute to adopt a new map.
"The district court created timing and remedy issues that otherwise might not exist. As a result, this court has now been asked to answer federal and state questions of great import within three weeks," Tymkovich wrote. "Further, the court's adoption of a map proposed by an undoubtedly interested, nongovernmental party unnecessarily raises doubts about the fairness of the process. None of this need have happened."
A request for comment from the Utah Lieutenant Governor's Office was not immediately returned.
This document is best viewed on a laptop or desktop computer.
