Utahns take pride in our tradition of self-governance, whereby the people’s will flows through elected representatives accountable to us the voters. Yet, Judge Dianna Gibson’s August 25, 2025, ruling in League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature (“League”) threatens this foundation.
By striking down SB200, reviving Proposition 4 and enjoining the 2021 congressional maps, Gibson oversteps judicial bounds, echoing the Utah Supreme Court’s misguided 2024 decision that essentially turned citizen initiatives into “super laws” on par with constitutional amendments. These rulings disrupt the Legislature’s constitutional authority under Article IX, Section 1, to draw electoral maps, risking instability for 2026 elections.
Both decisions reflect judicial activism, not restraint. The Utah Supreme Court’s creation of a “fundamental right” to unamended initiatives under Articles I and VI misreads Utah’s Constitution, ignoring the limits of direct democracy. Initiatives are for enacting laws, not locking in policies that bind elected officials indefinitely. Gibson’s order amplifies this error by voiding SB200 entirely and imposing remedies that encroach on legislative prerogatives.
But even accepting these rulings as binding for now, Proposition 4 remains a procedural statute — not a substantive straitjacket.
Proposition 4 is analogous to the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires agencies to assess environmental impacts via statements, promoting transparency. But it does not mandate outcomes. Similarly, Proposition 4 creates a commission to draft maps using neutral criteria like compactness, submits them for review and requires explanations for deviations. But lawmakers are not bound to adopt any of those maps unchanged.
This NEPA analogy is crucial for understanding Proposition 4’s limits. Enacted in 1969, NEPA revolutionized federal decision-making by mandating that agencies prepare Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for major actions. These statements detail potential effects, alternatives and mitigation strategies, ensuring public input and informed choices.
Yet, as the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held, NEPA is “essentially procedural.” It does not dictate that agencies must choose the “greenest” option or halt projects altogether. Instead, it guards against arbitrary decisions by requiring rigorous analysis and disclosure. If an agency follows the process — evaluating impacts, considering alternatives and responding to comments — it can proceed with its preferred action, even if critics disagree on substance.
Proposition 4 operates the same way. It establishes an independent redistricting commission to propose up to three maps per district type, adhering to standards like equal population, contiguity and prohibitions on undue partisan favoritism.
The commission must hold public hearings, use best available data and submit plans to the chief justice for certification. The Legislature then reviews these proposals in a public session, with at least 10 days’ notice for public comment. If lawmakers reject the commission’s maps, they must enact their own — so long as the Legislature issues a detailed report explaining how its version aligns with the standards.
Importantly, just as courts don’t second-guess an agency’s substantive decision under NEPA if procedures are met, Utah courts should not micromanage the Legislature’s redistricting maps under Proposition 4. Judicial review is limited to ensuring compliance with the procedural steps: Did the commission propose compliant maps? Was there public input? Did the Legislature provide a reasoned explanation for deviations?
If yes, the inquiry ends. The statute’s private right of action allows challenges for procedural lapses or clear violations of standards, but it doesn’t empower judges to redraw maps or impose their policy preferences. As the Utah Supreme Court emphasized in League, Proposition 4 “did not take the authority to enact electoral maps from the Legislature.” It serves as a check on process, not a veto on outcomes.
This means the Legislature retains broad authority and discretion to draw maps as it deems best for Utahns. Lawmakers can prioritize rural-urban balance, economic communities or transportation corridors — factors that might lead it to reject commission proposals. So long as the Legislature follows Proposition 4’s steps and articulates why its map meets the criteria, courts must defer.
Utah voters asked for sunlight and standards in redistricting. Proposition 4 compels transparency and reasoned decision-making. It does not hand the redistricting pen to the courts. Let the elected representatives determine the substantive policy — and let the voters hold them accountable.